A Multilevel Study of Transformational Leadership, Identification, and Follower Outcomes

The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 775–790
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
The Leadership Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua
A multilevel study of transformational leadership, identification, and

follower outcomes☆
Xiao-Hua (Frank) Wang a,⁎, Jane M. Howell b, 1
a
Competence Centre People & Organization, Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School, Vlamingenstraat 83, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
b
Taylor/Mingay Chair of Leadership, Richard Ivey School of Business, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 3K7
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Using a sample from a large diversified company, this study examines the influence processes
Received 8 May 2011 of transformational leadership (TFL) at both the individual and group levels concurrently and
Received in revised form 20 January 2012 explores cross-level relationships. Results showed that, at the individual level, followers' per-
Accepted 1 February 2012
sonal identification with the leader mediated the effects of individual-focused TFL behavior on
Available online 2 March 2012
individual performance and empowerment. At the group level, group identification mediated
the effect of group-focused TFL behavior on collective efficacy. Results also supported two
Keywords: cross-level effects from the group level to the individual level. The paper addresses the impli-
Transformational leadership
cations for leaders of motivating individuals and teams, at the same time.
Multilevel
© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Identification
1. Introduction
As teams become more important in many organizations, today's leaders face a challenging balancing act. On the one hand,
they need to develop and motivate individual followers so as to ensure that each employee is capable of, and willing to, complete
his or her own tasks; on the other hand, they need to facilitate collaboration and build trust among team members so that the
team functions effectively as a whole. Overcoming this challenge requires capabilities in both individual and team leadership.
However, traditional leadership models have not made a clear distinction between leader–follower interactions and leader–
team interactions (Zaccaro, Heinen, & Shuffler, 2009). Previous research has investigated the leadership phenomenon from a mul-
tilevel perspective (Chun, Yammarino, Dionne, Sosik, & Moon, 2009; Jung, Yammarino, & Lee, 2009; Markham, Yammarino,
Murry, & Palanski, 2010; Yammarino, Dubinsky, Comer, & Jolson, 1997; Yammarino, Spangler, & Dubinsky, 1998); however, re-
searchers have yet to fully investigate the interplay and connections between those two levels (Zaccaro et al., 2009).
Leadership is inherently multilevel (Yammarino & Dansereau, 2008), so our understanding of effective leadership will be lim-
ited if we fail to integrate individual-level processes with group-level processes (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). In order to fill this gap,
Chen, Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, and Rosen (2007) recently conducted a multilevel study to examine the effects of leadership on
individual- and group-level outcomes, respectively. They reported that, at the individual level, leader–member exchange was re-
lated to individual performance via individual empowerment; whereas, at the group level, leadership climate related to group
performance through group empowerment.
The purpose of the present study was to extend this line of multilevel research to the domain of transformational leadership
(TFL). Transformational leaders express high expectations, provide individualized development, articulate a compelling collective
☆ This research was funded by the grant awarded to Jane M. Howell by Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (410-2006-1896). The au-
thors are grateful for the constructive feedback provided by Natalie Allen, Richard Goffin, John Meyer, Tom O'Neil, Susan Pepper, Glenn Rowe, and Boas Shamir on
earlier versions of the article.
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 32 16 24 88 42.
E-mail addresses: frank.wang@vlerick.com (X.-H.(F.) Wang), jhowell@ivey.uwo.ca (J.M. Howell).
1
Tel.: + 1 519 661 3263.
1048-9843/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.02.001
776 X.-H.(F.) Wang, J.M. Howell / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 775–790
vision, and achieve extraordinary results (Bass & Riggio, 2006). In particular, we aim to investigate the influence processes of TFL
at both individual and group levels simultaneously and to explore cross-level relationships between the group level and the
individual level. Previous research has shown that some TFL behaviors are targeted at the individual level, whereas others are
at the group level (Kark & Shamir, 2002; Wang & Howell, 2010; Wu, Tsui, & Kinicki, 2010). Specifically, individual-focused TFL
behavior develops individual followers' abilities and skills, increases their self-efficacy, and empowers them to develop their
full potential (Wang & Howell, 2010). The influence target is individual followers, meaning that the leader takes an interest in
all followers, understands their unique characteristics and abilities, and tailors coaching accordingly (Kark & Shamir, 2002). In
other words, the leader may set different goals or provide coaching on different skills for different followers according to their
experiences and abilities. Thus, the content of individual-focused TFL behavior may vary across followers.
In contrast, group-focused TFL behavior communicates the importance of group goals, develops shared values and beliefs
among followers, and inspires unified effort to achieve group goals (Wang & Howell, 2010). The influence target is the whole
group, meaning that the leader exhibits similar behavior toward different members of the group (Yammarino & Bass, 1990).
Unlike individual-focused TFL behavior, the content of group-focused TFL behavior remains the same across different followers.
Specifically, the leader may articulate the same group vision and stress the same shared group identity to all group members,
regardless of which member she or he is addressing.
Dividing TFL behaviors into two levels lays the groundwork for multilevel TFL studies. The current study contributes to this
line of research in four ways. First, to our knowledge, the underlying mechanisms of TFL have not been fully explored from a mul-
tilevel perspective, even though the direct effects of TFL on followers have been investigated using a multilevel approach
(Yammarino et al., 1997; Yammarino et al., 1998). Previous studies examining the influence processes of TFL have mainly focused
on either the individual level (e.g.,. Bono & Judge, 2003) or the group level (e.g., Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003). The only ex-
ception is Liao and Chuang's (2007) study, in which they examined how TFL influences employee service performance from a
multilevel perspective. The authors found that, at the individual level, employee self-efficacy mediated the relation between
TFL and employee service performance, whereas at the group level, service climate mediated the cross-level effect of group-
level TFL on employee service performance.
Although this study was the first one to explicitly explore the dual-level process of TFL, it has two limitations. First, it did not
measure any group-level outcomes, and therefore did not fully test the dual-level TFL model. Second, the group-level TFL was cal-
culated by averaging team members' evaluation of a leader's individual-level TFL scores. In other words, Liao and Chuang's study
did not distinguish individual-focused TFL from group-focused TFL. However, as stated above, recent developments in TFL re-
search have demonstrated that TFL behaviors may involve different components at the individual versus group levels (Wang &
Howell, 2010; Wu et al., 2010). The present study draws on this advance to examine the influence processes of each TFL compo-
nent at its designated level (i.e., leader identification as the mediator at the individual level and group identification as the me-
diator at the group level), and thus renders a complete test of the dual-level TFL model (Kark & Shamir, 2002).
The second contribution of the present study is that the dual-level TFL process model allows us to test the cross-level effects from
the group level to the individual level, which will shed light on the dynamic interplay between individuals within a team and the team
as a whole (Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Chen et al., 2007; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). According to the Open Systems Theory (Katz & Kahn,
1978), the individual- and group-level phenomena of leadership, motivation, and performance are strongly connected. The cross-
level approach goes beyond the traditional single-level approach and delineates a synergistic and complementary way through
which group-level and individual-level inputs jointly affect individual motivation and performance. Specifically, the cross-level ap-
proach is able to explain additional variance in individual-level motivation and performance over and beyond the individual-level an-
tecedents, and thus help us better understand employee motivation and performance at the individual level. Furthermore, the cross-
level approach is crucial for advancing research on leadership, especially transformational leadership. Although recent research has
divided TFL into two levels (Wang & Howell, 2010; Wu et al., 2010), researchers have treated the two levels separately and have
yet to consider the top–down effect of group-focused TFL on followers at the individual level. We argue that, although group-
focused TFL is targeted to the group as a whole, it will also have a trickle-down effect on followers' personal identification with the
leader. In other words, leading the group also leads the individuals within it. Investigating such a cross-level effect can demonstrate
how group-focused TFL influences the motivation of individual followers over and beyond individual-focused TFL.
Third, this study investigates the motivating role of leader identification in TFL processes. Although previous evidence has
shown the impact of TFL on leader identification (Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003), it remains unclear whether such identification
has positive or negative effects on followers. Howell and Shamir (2005) posit that since leader identification involves idealizing
and romanticizing the leader, followers may end up blindly adoring and heavily depending on their leader, “over-empowering”
him or her and creating harmful consequences. In contrast, other theorists (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Kark & Shamir, 2002;
Kelman, 1958, 1961) contend that leader identification may cause followers to internalize the leader's values and vision and
adopt a positive attitude, and motivate them to improve their individual performance. For example, Sosik, Jung, and Dinger
(2009) found that leaders with self-transcendent values tend to have a more salient collective self, which in turn motivates
them to display more altruistic behavior. Thus, followers who identify with such leaders are expected to internalize those self-
transcendent values and exhibit more altruistic behavior towards others. Therefore, the current study tests whether leader iden-
tification mediates the positive effects of TFL on followers at the individual level.
Finally, the present study attempts to answer managerially relevant questions such as: how can leaders motivate individual
followers and the whole team at the same time? Are individual- and group-focused TFL behaviors equally important or one is
more favorable than the other? Answers to those important questions will help managers conquer the challenge of leading indi-
viduals and the team simultaneously and provide guidance on how to hone their leadership skills accordingly.
X.-H.(F.) Wang, J.M. Howell / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 775–790 777
2. Theory and hypothesis
In Fig. 1, we delineate a multilevel model of TFL processes. First, we argue that, at the individual level, the influence of
individual-focused TFL is mediated by followers' identification with the leader, defined as the extent to which followers view
themselves in terms of their relationships with the leader and desire to be like the leader (Kark & Shamir, 2002). Second, we
propose that, at the group level, the effects of group-focused TFL are mediated by group identification, defined as the extent to
which individuals incorporate group membership into their self-concepts (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Third, we explore two
cross-level effects from the group level to the individual level: the effect of group-focused TFL on leader identification and the
effect of group identification on individual performance and empowerment. In the following section, we review the relevant
literature and develop our hypotheses.
2.1. Transformational leadership and followers' self-concept
Self-concept can be viewed as the knowledge a person has about himself or herself. Shamir, House, and Arthur's (1993) Self-
Concept Theory of Charismatic Leadership argues that the essence of charismatic leadership is to build strong links between
followers' self-concepts and the leader, the group led by the leader, and the collective vision. When followers identify with the
leader and the group, they regard them as symbolic and expressive aspects of their self-concepts and incorporate shared values
as their own guiding principles. Drawing on Shamir et al.'s theory, other researchers suggest that a leader's ability to influence
different aspects of followers' self-concept may be one of the mechanisms through which TFL produces its effects (Kark &
Shamir, 2002; Lord, Brown, & Freiberg, 1999).
Brewer and Gardner (1996) maintain that the self-concept is composed of three levels: the individual self, the relational self,
and the collective self, and that these three levels of self-concept represent distinct orientations of identity. Kark and Shamir
(2002) argue that the relational and collective selves, which link followers to the leader and the group, may be crucial for under-
standing TFL processes. The relational self is the extent to which individuals define themselves in terms of dyadic connections and
role relationships with significant others. The collective self involves self-definition based on one's social group memberships,
where favorable intergroup comparisons give rise to self-worth.
Drawing on Brewer and Gardner's (1996) theory and its extension to the field of leadership by Lord et al. (1999), Kark and
Shamir (2002) propose that TFL can have dual effects on followers at the individual and group levels. At the individual level,
individual-focused TFL behavior is expected to prime followers' relational self and foster leader identification, which in turn, in-
fluences followers' self-efficacy, and their loyalty and commitment to, and dependence on, the leader. At the group level, group-
focused TFL behavior is expected to activate followers' collective self and elicit group identification, which increases followers'
collective efficacy, unit cohesiveness, and cooperative behaviors.
In their study investigating the dual effects of TFL on followers, Kark et al. (2003) reported that leader identification mediated
the positive relationship between TFL and followers' dependence on the leader, whereas group identification mediated the pos-
itive relationship between TFL and followers' empowerment. Although this study provides some support for the dual-level TFL
model, it has three limitations. First, it treated TFL as an overarching construct and did not distinguish between individual- and
group-focused TFL behaviors. Second, it focused on the individual level and did not include any group-level mediator or out-
comes; however, a multilevel approach is necessary to fully test dual-level TFL processes. Third, the study only measured depen-
dence as the outcome of leader identification. Although Kark et al. argue that dependence may not always be negative, we still
need to explore whether leader identification positively influences individual followers.
(H3)
Group Level
Group-Focused Group
Identification (H4) – Group Performance
Transformational
– Collective Efficacy
Leadership Behavior
H5 H6
Individual Level
Individual-Focused Leader – Individual Performance

Transformational Identification (H2) – Psychological
Leadership Behavior Empowerment
(H1)
Fig. 1. A multilevel model of transformational leadership, identification, and performance.

Recently Wu et al. (2010) tested Kark and Shamir's (2002) dual-level TFL model from a different angle by examining the ef-
fects of individual-focused and group-focused TFL behaviors on followers, both at the group level. Wu et al. (2010) define the ex-
tent to which a leader exhibits varying levels of individual-focused behavior across different group members as differentiated
leadership. They reported that, at the group level, differentiated leadership within groups diminished group effectiveness by cre-
ating divergence in leader identification and member self-efficacy. On the other hand, group-focused leadership facilitated group
identification and collective efficacy, which positively contributed to group effectiveness. These results suggest that leaders who
attempt to fulfill both individual and group needs may inadvertently compromise group outcomes.
The present study is also based on Kark and Shamir's (2002) model, and makes several contributions beyond Wu et al.'s
(2010) study. First, Wu et al.'s work focused only on the group level. In contrast, our study directly tests multilevel TFL processes
by incorporating both individual and group levels of analysis. Second, Wu et al.'s (2010) study only focused on TFL behaviors from
Bass' classic theory of TFL (Bass, 1985; Bass & Riggio, 2006). The current study incorporates two additional TFL dimensions:
(1) team-building behavior at the group level (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990); and (2) communicating high ex-
pectations at the individual level (House & Shamir, 1993). Sosik and Jung (2010) argue that high expectations can be communi-
cated through intellectual stimulation. However, following Podsakoff et al. (1990), we contend that communicating high
expectations is essential to TFL theory, and should be measured as a separate dimension. By including a wider variety of TFL be-
haviors, our study presents a more comprehensive picture of how transformational leaders can drive individual and group per-
formance at the same time.
2.2. Individual-level transformational leadership process
We hypothesize that, at the individual level, individual-focused TFL will be positively related to individual performance and
empowerment. Although accumulated empirical evidence has demonstrated the positive effect of TFL on individual performance
(Judge & Piccolo, 2004), most researchers have not clearly distinguished between individual- and group-focused TFL behaviors.
Schriesheim, Wu, and Scandura (2009) assert that in the most commonly used measure of TFL, the Multifactor Leadership Ques-
tionnaire (MLQ) (Avolio & Bass, 2004), most of the items are ambiguous with respect to level of analysis because they do not have
a clear referent. Thus, these items may yield invalid data and erroneous results because the levels of measurement do not align
with the level of theory (Schriesheim et al., 2009).
Following Schriesheim et al.'s recommendation, Wang and Howell (2010) developed a multilevel TFL scale that assigns an ap-
propriate referent for each item to ensure the level of the data matches the level of the theory under investigation. They reported
that individual-focused TFL behavior was positively related to individual performance, which echoes the positive effect of TFL on
individual performance in previous research (Judge & Piccolo, 2004).
Individual-focused TFL behavior is also proposed to boost followers' sense of psychological empowerment, which is a multi-
dimensional construct consisting of: (a) impact (i.e., degree to which employees feel their work affects their organization),
(b) competence (i.e., perceived ability to accomplish work-related tasks), (c) meaningfulness (i.e., intrinsic caring about work
tasks), and (d) choice (i.e., perceived self-determination or autonomy at work) (Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).
Transformational leaders can enhance followers' sense of meaning and competence by setting high performance expectations,
expressing confidence in followers' abilities to meet these expectations, and providing positive feedback when goals are achieved
(Bandura, 1986; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Shamir et al., 1993). Furthermore, transformational leaders encourage followers to
solve problems in a more independent and innovative way, which increases followers' sense of control and self-determination
over their own work (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Previous research supports the positive association be-
tween TFL and empowerment (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004; Kark et al., 2003). Therefore, we advance the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. At the individual level, individual-focused TFL behavior will be positively related to individual performance (H1a)
and psychological empowerment (H1b).
Furthermore, we propose that leader identification mediates the effect of individual-focused TFL on individual performance
and empowerment. When followers identify with a leader, they share similar values and beliefs with the leader and develop
an emotional bond with the leader; the relationships with the leader become an important component of the followers' self-
concept (Kark & Shamir, 2002). The role of leader identification as a mediator of the individual-level TFL process would be sup-
ported by links between (1) individual-focused TFL and leader identification, and (2) leader identification and individual perfor-
mance and empowerment.
Self-concept Leadership Theory (Kark & Shamir, 2002; Lord et al., 1999; Shamir et al., 1993) suggests that a transformational
leader can encourage followers to identify with him or her by exhibiting individual-focused TFL behavior. This is because such
behavior recognizes the distinctiveness of each follower's skills and capabilities and shows that the leader is concerned about
the development and welfare of each follower. As a result, followers are likely to build close relationships with their leaders –
which are characterized by mutual trust, support, and satisfaction – and to identify with the leader (Kark et al., 2003; Shamir,
Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998).
It is argued that the positive effects of individual-focused TFL on followers' individual performance and empowerment can
be attributed to leader identification. According to Kelman's (1958, 1961) Theory of Social Influence Processes, a follower can
take two approaches to establishing and maintaining the desired relationship with the leader. First, the relationship between
the follower and leader can take the form of classic identification, in which the follower will imitate the leader's behavior, ac-
cept the leader's beliefs and values, and attempt to be like, or actually to be, the leader (Kelman, 1961). This role modeling
process is proposed to be one of the major mechanisms through which transformational leaders influence followers (Conger
& Kanungo, 1998; Shamir et al., 1993). Such emulation and learning can help followers acquire the requisite skills and abilities
to perform and can create feelings of empowerment and heightened self-efficacy. Second, the relationship between leader and
follower can take the form of a reciprocal role relationship (Kelman, 1958, 1961). Followers who identify with a leader are mo-
tivated to fulfill role obligations and achieve the goals set by the leader in order to be recognized and to further develop the
rewarding relationship with the leader (Lord et al., 1999). Therefore, through either classic identification or reciprocation, fol-
lowers who strongly identify with the leader are inspired to work harder, complete challenging tasks, and deliver higher indi-
vidual performance.
Furthermore, according to Self-concept Theory (Brewer & Gardner, 1996), when followers identify with the leader, their rela-
tional self is salient, and their primary motivation is to maintain the relationship and enhance the other party's well-being. Re-
searchers have defined this desire to benefit other people as prosocial motivation (Batson, 1987; Grant, 2007). Prosocial
motivation actually increases the value that followers place on their performance, which is perceived as the means of not only
achieving their individual goals, but also having a positive impact on others, including the leader. Followers who have established
a strong emotional bond with their leader are more likely to value recognition from the leader for their effort and contributions,
and to avoid feeling guilty about failing to fulfill the leader's expectations (Grant & Wrzesniewski, 2010). Pursuing gratitude from
the leader and avoiding guilt within themselves motivates followers to deliver higher individual performance. In addition, when
followers identify with the leader, they will accept the leader's vision and internalize the leader's values. Work then becomes
more intrinsically motivating because the effort reflects important values and contributes to achieving meaningful goals
(Shamir et al., 1993). Therefore, followers who identify with the leader may experience high levels of both intrinsic and prosocial
motivation, and thus are more persistent and more productive (Grant, 2008).
Leader identification can also enhance followers' sense of empowerment. According to the Theory of the Relational Self
(Andersen & Chen, 2002; Andersen, Reznik, & Chen, 1997), individuals' basic needs for competency, autonomy, mastery, and
meaning are the underlying motives for developing close relationships with significant others. In other words, relational identi-
fication provides the foundation from which the feelings of autonomy and empowerment can be constructed. Attachment Theory
(Bowlby, 1973, 1980) maintains that individuals realize their full potential when they are confident that there are trusted persons
who will support them and will come to their aid if necessary. Specifically, individuals are fully autonomous and empowered only
when they feel that they are supported by and attached to trusted others. Furthermore, Kahn (1996, 1998) argues that followers
need to nurture close relationships with their leaders and co-workers in the work setting. Such relationships facilitate a sense of
security in employees and hence empower them, because help is available from others should difficulties arise. Similarly, Flum
(2001) contends that relational identification at work is essential for psychological growth and empowerment, because it pro-
vides employees with strength and power, and reduces anxiety, uncertainty, and loneliness.
Sluss and Ashforth (2007) argue that empowerment may result from tight supportive and developmental relational ties with
the leader. Seeing their leader as a role model may boost followers' confidence in completing their own tasks because they know
that the leader has the necessary expertise and can provide guidance if problems arise (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). Followers who
identify with their leader also internalize their leader's values and vision, and behave accordingly. Thus, they view their work
roles as more meaningful and impactful because their efforts express important values and contribute to a larger collective
cause (Shamir et al., 1993). Finally, Kark and Shamir (2002) contend that followers' feelings of autonomy and independence
can grow from close relational ties with the leader. Relational identification is essential for the psychological growth of followers
since it can fulfill important needs such as uncertainty reduction, self-enhancement, and self-expansion (Ashforth & Mael, 1989;
Cooper & Thatcher, 2010). Based on the above discussion we predict:
Hypothesis 2. At the individual level, followers' personal identification with the leader will mediate the effects of individual-
focused TFL behavior on individual performance (H2a) and psychological empowerment (H2b).
2.3. Group-level transformational leadership process
Besides the individual-focused behavior that develops followers' competencies, group leaders also need to display group-
focused behavior that promotes shared commitment to group goals and establishes positive group processes (Kozlowski, Gully,
McHugh, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1996; Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010). Transformational leaders can enhance group perfor-
mance by stressing the shared values and characteristics of group members, inspiring followers to transcend their personal inter-
ests for the collective purpose, and facilitating mutual trust and cooperation among group members (Bass, 1985; Shamir et al.,
1993). In addition, Social Identity Leadership Theory (Hogg, 2001; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003) proposes that when group
members identify with their group and group membership becomes more salient in their self-concepts, leadership effectiveness
is then contingent on the extent to which the leader is perceived by followers as a prototypical member of the group. That is, the
extent to which the leader possesses group-based attributes (e.g., attitudes, feelings, and behavior) that characterize the group
and distinguish it from other groups. When a leader exhibits group-focused TFL behavior, such as emphasizing the shared identity
and articulating the shared vision, he or she will be perceived as a representative character of the group and then will be endorsed
as an effective leader. Wang and Howell (2010) found that, at the group level of analysis, group-focused TFL behavior was posi-
tively related to team performance and helping behavior. This result resonates with previous studies that reported the positive
effects of TFL behavior on group effectiveness (Bass et al., 2003; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002; Keller, 2006; Lim & Ployhart,
2004).
It is also expected that, at the group level, group-focused TFL behavior will have a positive effect on collective efficacy, defined
as individuals' beliefs that their work group can function effectively and perform its tasks successfully (Bandura, 1986). Guzzo,
Yost, Campbell, and Shea (1993) argue that transformational leaders who engage in verbal persuasion and enactive attainment
can influence individuals' sense of collective efficacy. For example, the leader can enhance collective efficacy by providing ideo-
logical explanations of individual effort that connect followers' individual identities to the group identity (Shamir et al., 1993).
When a leader articulates a shared group goal, expresses confidence that the group will achieve this goal, and encourages mem-
bers to work together towards it, group members tend to develop a collective belief that their group will succeed (Kark & Shamir,
2002). Through team-building behavior, the leader can foster mutual trust among group members, develop collaboration within
the group, and promote members' collective efficacy (Avolio, Kahai, Dumdum, & Sivasubramaniam, 2001). Previous research has
supported the positive effect of TFL on collective efficacy (Bass et al., 2003; Walumbwa, Wang, Lawler, & Shi, 2004). In sum, the
arguments and evidence presented above lead to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3. At the group level, group-focused TFL behavior will be positively related to followers' group performance (H3a)
and collective efficacy (H3b).
Furthermore, we propose that the effects of group-focused TFL on group performance and collective efficacy are mediated by
group identification. When individuals identify with a group, group attributes such as shared identities and common goals be-
come more salient for individuals than personal characteristics (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Self-worth and self-esteem are derived
from favorable intergroup comparisons (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). The mediation role of group identification would be supported
by connections between (1) group-focused TFL and group identification, and (2) group identification and group performance and
collective efficacy.
Self-concept Leadership Theory contends that effective leaders are able to connect followers' self-concept to the role identities
associated with the group (Lord & Brown, 2004; Lord et al., 1999). Leaders who emphasize the boundaries of the group by
highlighting the team members' shared characteristics and the uniqueness of the group enhance the salience of the group identity
in members' self-concepts (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Furthermore, when transformational leaders underscore the important
values and beliefs shared by the team, followers are likely to regard their individual efforts as an expression of a collective identity
(Shamir et al., 1993). Mumford and Strange (2002) contend that leaders who communicate a shared vision help followers inter-
pret how their individual tasks or roles contribute to achieving the unit's shared goal, therefore evoking group identification. Pre-
vious empirical studies have supported the impact of group-focused TFL on followers' group identification (Conger, Kanungo, &
Menon, 2000; Shamir, Zakay, Brainin, & Popper, 2000; Shamir et al., 1998).
Group identification, in turn, can promote group performance and collective efficacy of followers. According to Social Identity
Theory (SIT) (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986), individuals who identify with a group regard group expectations and goals as intrin-
sically motivating, exert themselves on behalf of the group, and exhibit self-sacrificial and group-oriented behaviors (Dutton,
Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994). Collectively, team members who share high levels of group identification are expected to have stron-
ger commitment to the group goals, to devote greater effort to group tasks, and hence to deliver higher levels of group perfor-
mance (Ellemers, De Gilder, & Haslam, 2004).
Furthermore, we propose that group identification also influences collective efficacy, defined as “a group's shared belief in its
conjoint capability to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainments” (Bandura, 1997,
p. 477). First, SIT suggests that people identify with groups in part because such identification enhances their self-esteem and per-
ceptions of efficacy (Hogg & Abrams, 1990). According to Tajfel's (1978) classic definition, social identity consists of not only the
perception of belonging to a collective, but also the value connotation and emotional significance of the group membership. Due
to the evaluative nature of social identity, individuals who identify with a group tend to attribute positive qualities to the group,
and hence optimistically evaluate their team's collective ability to achieve group tasks (Tajfel, 1982). Second, when group mem-
bers share a sense of group identification, they are likely to internalize the group values, follow the group norms, and accept per-
formance standards. As a result, group members may synchronize more effectively because they are able to anticipate each
other's actions and movements. Such smooth coordination may create a sense of cohesion and efficiency among members
which contributes to positive beliefs about the group's capabilities to accomplish challenging goals (Jung & Sosik, 2002;
Zaccaro, Blair, Peterson, & Zazanis, 1995).
Third, according to Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986, 1997), group members' collective efficacy may be dampened by
members' emotional arousal states, which result from stress, fear, anxiety, and so forth. However, group identification can
serve as a buffer that protects individuals from these negative emotions. Specifically, if everybody internalizes the group member-
ship into their self-concept and develops a shared identity, they are likely to establish a cohesive and trusting climate within the
group and provide each other with assistance and emotional support, which in turn will reduce the counterproductive effect of
negative emotional arousal on collective efficacy (Conger & Kanungo, 1988).
In sum, it is reasonable to expect that group identification would lead to higher group performance and increased collective
efficacy (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Shamir et al. (1993) contend that activating group identification is one of the central mecha-
nisms through which transformational leaders influence followers. Empirical studies have supported this assertion. For example,
Kark et al. (2003) reported that social identification mediated the relationship between TFL and followers' empowerment (con-
ceptualized as self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and organization-based self-esteem). Similarly, Wu et al. (2010) reported that
group-focused TFL behavior was positively related to group identification, which in turn positively correlated with collective ef-
ficacy. Based on the arguments and evidence delineated above, we postulate:
Hypothesis 4. Group identification will mediate the positive effects of group-focused TFL behavior on group performance (H4a)
and collective efficacy (H4a).
2.4. Cross-level effects
Individual- and group-level TFL processes are not independent, but are connected to each other through cross-level effects. A
cross-level effect is defined as the impact of a variable in the group-level TFL process on another variable in the individual-level
TFL process (Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994). Hackman (1992) posits two types of stimuli that affect individuals' motivation and
behavior within a team: (a) ambient stimuli, or team-oriented stimuli that influence the team as a whole, such as group identi-
fication in the current study; and (b) discretionary stimuli, or person-oriented stimuli directed to a specific team member rather
than the team as a whole, such as the individual-focused TFL and leader identification in the present study. The cross-level ap-
proach allows us to explore how ambient and discretionary inputs jointly influence individual motivation and performance. Spe-
cifically, we propose two cross-level effects in this study.
First, we expect that group-focused TFL behavior is related positively to leader identification. Although group-focused TFL be-
havior is targeted at all group members, this behavior may also build strong emotional bonds between the leader and followers as
a trickle-down effect. Followers' leader identification can be developed via value congruence (Kark & Shamir, 2002; Pratt, 1998).
When a transformational leader stresses shared values and the important meanings embedded in the group vision, followers may
identify with him or her because they feel that they share the leader's values and beliefs (Lord et al., 1999). Leader identification
can be also enhanced by role modeling (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Kelman, 1961). Leaders serve as role models when they display
self-sacrificial behavior in the interest of the collective goal and demonstrate conviction in the shared vision. Accordingly, group
members want to incorporate the leader's values and beliefs into their own identities and define themselves in terms of their re-
lationship with the leader (Pratt, 1998). In addition, Social Identity Leadership Theory (Hogg, 2001; van Knippenberg & Hogg,
2003) suggests that followers identify with a leader because he or she is prototypical of the group. This is consistent with
Shamir et al.'s (1993) argument that one reason for identifying with the leader is that followers regard him or her as a represen-
tative character of the group. When the leader displays group-focused TFL behavior, followers perceive him or her as more pow-
erful, attractive, and trustworthy, because he or she is working for the group and has the group's best interest in mind. These
perceptions are the basis of followers' personal identification with the leader. We therefore hypothesize:
Hypothesis 5. Group-focused TFL behavior will be positively related to followers' leader identification.
Second, we propose that followers' group identification is positively related to two individual-level outcomes: individual per-
formance and empowerment. Drawing on SIT, group identification can serve as an important individual performance motivator
and can align individual interests and behaviors with interests and behaviors that benefit the group (Ellemers et al., 2004;
Tajfel, 1982). This means that exertion on behalf of the group is also exertion on behalf of the self (Dutton et al., 1994). Individ-
uals' efforts to benefit the group may include behaviors such as performing to higher standards, working long hours, and taking
on extra-role responsibilities. These efforts are now perceived as more meaningful, since they represent the collective identity
and reflect important values shared among group members (Shamir et al., 1993). Individuals may feel obliged to be more effective
in their own jobs and deliver better individual performance in order to become valued group members (Dukerich, Golden, &
Shortell, 2002; Hogg, 2001; Pratt, 1998).
Individuals' sense of empowerment may be also enhanced when they identify with a group because their perceptions, atti-
tudes, and behaviors are now prescribed by an in-group prototype that has usually been validated by other group members
(Hogg, 2001; Pratt, 1998). Individuals may feel more confident in their abilities to perform tasks because other team members
can offer support and help if necessary. In accordance with this argument, prior studies have demonstrated the positive effects
of group identification on both individual performance (van Knippenberg & Schie, 2000; Walumbwa, Avolio, & Zhu, 2008;
Worchel, Rothgerber, Day, Hart, & Butemeyer, 1998) and empowerment (Kark et al., 2003). Based on the arguments presented
above, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 6. Followers' group identification will be positively related to their individual performance (H6a) and psychological
empowerment (H6a).
3. Methods
3.1. Sample and procedure
The data were collected from a large multi-industry Canadian company (e.g., retail, media, transportation, forestry, shipbuild-
ing, equipment, etc.). The diverse business units comprising this sample increase the generalizability of our findings. Middle-level
managers (leaders) were responsible for a business unit, and their direct reports (team members). For example, an Area Sales
Manager was accountable for managing and developing a team which included an assistant sales manager, business development
managers, and onsite support staff, such as site accountants. The Area Sales Manager was also responsible for developing and
implementing sales plans, serving as the point of contact for large accounts, representing the company at industry functions,
and staying abreast of key industry trends. To ensure that leaders and direct reports had sufficient knowledge of one another
and opportunities to interact, they needed to have worked together for a minimum of nine months. In addition, only leaders
who had four or more direct reports were included in the study.
The data were collected via both paper-and-pencil and web-based surveys. Respondents who did not have email access re-
ceived paper-and-pencil surveys to complete. We collected different variables from two sources (i.e., team members and leaders)
at two times to minimize common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). At Time 1, leaders rated team
members' individual performance and group performance, and provided demographic information. Team members reported
their leaders' TFL behavior and provided demographic information. Two weeks later (Time 2), team members completed ques-
tionnaires measuring leader and group identification, empowerment, and collective efficacy. Surveys distributed to leaders and
team members were assigned a unique code in order to match leader and team member responses.
Complete data were obtained from 200 team members and their 60 leaders. The overall response rates were 78% for leaders
and 72% for group members at Time 1, and 55% for group members at Time 2. There was participant attrition between the Time 1
and Time 2 surveys; 92 team members did not complete the Time 2 survey. We performed multiple logistic regression to assess
the effect of attrition, as suggested by Goodman and Blum (1996), and the results indicated that non-random sampling was not an
issue. 2
The average number of respondents per leader was 3.3 (SD = 1.08, ranging from 2 to 7 members) and the within-group re-
sponse rate ranged from 50% to 100%, with a mean of 68%. The average team member age was 41; 68% were male; 66% had a col-
lege diploma or higher degree. The average organization tenure of group members was 11 years, and they had worked with their
leader for 4 years on average. The average leader age was 43; 88% were male; and 83% had a college diploma or higher degree.
Leaders' average organization tenure was 15 years.
3.2. Measures
3.2.1. Transformational leadership behavior

Individual- and group-focused TFL behaviors were measured by a multilevel TFL scale developed by Wang and Howell (2010).
An individual or group referent was assigned to each individual- or group-focused item in the scale, respectively. The individual-
focused TFL subscale has 18 items that measure four dimensions. (1) Communicating high expectations demonstrates the leader's
expectations for excellence, quality, and high performance in his or her followers; this dimension derives from inspirational mo-
tivation in Bass (1985) TFL theory, and is also mentioned in House's charismatic leadership theory (House, 1977; House & Shamir,
1993). (2) Follower development aims to enhance followers' skills and abilities (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006). This dimension originat-
ed from individualized consideration in Bass (1985) TFL theory, which encompasses two sub-dimensions: developmental leader-
ship and supportive leadership. Rafferty and Griffin (2006) argue that developmental leadership is more likely to be a core
transformational behavior because it demonstrates stronger relationships with follower outcomes than supportive leadership.
Following their suggestion, we adopted follower development as our second individual-focused dimension. (3) Intellectual stim-
ulation encourages followers to be creative by questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and approaching challenges in dif-
ferent ways; this dimension is drawn from Bass (1985) TFL theory. (4) Personal recognition praises and acknowledges followers
for achieving specified goals or discovering new approaches (Rafferty & Griffin, 2004); this dimension originated from contingent
reward in Bass (1985) TFL theory, defined as offering followers rewards in exchange for satisfactory performance (Bass, 1985).
Besides impersonal economic exchanges, contingent reward also includes emotional exchanges in which leaders recognize and
acknowledge followers (Yukl, 1999). Such behavior clearly involves TFL, given its positive impact on followers' self-efficacy
and commitment (Rafferty & Griffin, 2004). According to Bass and Riggio (2006), “Contingent reward can be transformational
when the reward is psychological, such as praise” (p. 8). A sample individual-focused TFL item is “(My leader) helps me develop
my strengths” (from the dimension of follower development).
The group-focused TFL subscale contains 16 items that measure three dimensions. (1) Emphasizing group identity highlights
shared characteristics among group members and emphasizes followers' membership in the group; this behavior is derived
from Shamir et al.'s (1993) Charismatic Leadership Theory, and is also evident in idealized influence in Bass (1985) TFL theory.
(2) Communicating a group vision involves articulating an idealized and attractive picture of the future of the group, and is aligned
with inspirational motivation in Bass (1985) TFL theory. (3) Team-building focuses on promoting cooperation, resolving frictions,
and facilitating mutual trust among followers, and is adopted from Podsakoff et al.'s (1990) TFL scale. A sample group-focused TFL
item is “(Our leader) articulates a compelling vision of the future for our team” (from the dimension of communicating a group
vision). A 5-point Likert scale was used (0 = not at all; 4 = frequently, if not always).
We conducted a series of Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFAs) at the individual level using AMOS to assess the a priori factor
structures of the leadership scale. In the baseline model, all items loaded on their hypothesized factors. There were seven first-
order factors representing the seven TFL dimensions at both levels. There were two second-order factors representing
individual-focused and group-focused TFL behavior, respectively. Results showed a reasonable fit for the model: χ 2 (N = 200,
df = 518) = 973.81; χ 2/df = 1.88; CFI = .91; IFI = .91; RMSEA = .07. All factor loadings were significant at the .05 level. Relative
2
Results of the logistic regression analysis are available upon request from the first author.
to the baseline model, an alternative model, in which all leadership items were set to load on a single first-order factor, yielded a
poor fit with the data, χ 2 (df = 527) = 1640.46, p b .01; CFI = .78; IFI = .79; RMSEA = .10. In addition, a second alternative model,
in which the seven first-order factors were loaded on a single second-order factor, fit the data significantly worse than the hy-
pothesized model, χ 2 (df = 519) = 1113.49. p b .01, Δχ 2 (1) = 139.68, p b .01, CFI = .88 IFI = .88, RMSEA = .08. Taken together,
these results supported the factor structure of the dual-level leadership scale.
3.2.2. Leader identification

Four items were adopted from the leader identification scale developed by Kark et al. (2003) (e.g., “I am proud to tell others
she/he is my leader”; 1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree).
3.2.3. Group identification

Six items were adopted from Mael and Ashforth (1992) and Cameron (2004) to measure followers' group identification (e.g.,
“This team's success is my success”; 1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). This variable was assessed using the direct consen-
sus composition approach (Chan, 1998), which involved assigning each group member the average value of group identification
of his or her group. Although the referent used was “I” or “me,” the referent of interest was the group (e.g., “this team's success”).
Wu et al. (2010) used a similar method to operationalize their group identification construct at the group level. We further
assessed within-group agreement to justify aggregation.
3.2.4. Individual-level outcomes

Followers' individual performance was assessed by five items from Bono and Judge (2003) and Welbourne, Johnson, and Erez
(1998) (e.g., “The overall performance in the tasks associated with his/her job (is) __”; 1 = needs much improvement; 5 = excel-
lent). Psychological empowerment was measured by Spreitzer's (1995) 12-item scale (e.g., “The work I do is very important to
me”; 1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree).
3.2.5. Group-level outcomes

Group performance was assessed by Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, and Mount's (1998) scale (e.g., “Quality of work: (The team)
completes work thoroughly, accurately, and according to specifications”; 1 = somewhat below requirements; 5 = consistently ex-
ceeds requirements). Collective efficacy was measured by six items from Riggs and Knight (1994) (e.g., “This team is able to per-
form well”; 1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree).
3.2.6. Control variables

We asked both leaders and team members to report their age, gender, education level, organization tenure, and position
tenure. Members also stated their tenure with their current leader. Leaders reported the team size. Becker (2005) argues that,
“Unless there is reason to believe that … (a control variable) is a legitimate suppressor, including… (a control variable) that is
uncorrelated with the dependent variable in analyses reduces power” (p. 285). Thus, in the present study, the correlation coeffi-
cients between the dependent variables and all potential control variables were computed first. The variables that were unrelated
to the dependent variables were deleted from subsequent data analyses. The variables that were related to the dependent vari-
ables were considered control variables.
3.3. Aggregation tests
To justify the aggregation of the three shared group-level variables (i.e., group-focused TFL, group identification, and collective ef-
ficacy), we calculated rwg(j) and inter-member reliability (ICC), and examined between-group differences by conducting one-way an-
alyses of variance (ANOVA) contrasting team means on each variable. Because all three variables were slightly negatively skewed, we
estimated rwg(j) using a slightly skewed null distribution (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). The results supported the aggregation to the
group level for all three variables: group-focused TFL behavior (mean rwg(j) = .90; ICC1 = .32; ICC2 = .62; F (59,136) = 2.62, p b .01),
group identification (mean rwg(j) = .95; ICC1 = .13; ICC2= .33; F(59,139)= 1.49, p b .05), and collective efficacy (mean rwg(j) = .97;
ICC1= .19; ICC2= .45; F(59, 137)= 1.81, p b .01). The ICC(2) values were lower than the traditional .70 criterion because of the
small group sizes (M= 3.3) in our sample; however, data aggregation is still justifiable by high rwg(j) values and significant
between-groups variance (Chen & Bliese, 2002).
It should be noted that individual-focused TFL also demonstrated reasonable within-group agreement and between-group
variance (i.e., mean rwg(j) = .85; ICC1 = .28; F(59, 139) = 2.33, p b .01). However, these indices are lower than those of group-
focused TFL (i.e., mean rwg(j) = .90; ICC1 = .32). This comparison supports our argument that individual-focused TFL is an
individual-level variable, whereas group-focused TFL is a group-level variable. More importantly, researchers (Klein et al.,
1994; Yammarino et al., 1998) have asserted that the level of analysis at which a variable is operating should be determined
by the theory rather than by the data. Drawing on previous theories, we defined individual-focused TFL as an individual-level var-
iable because this behavior is targeted at individual followers rather than the group as a whole. We also used the appropriate ref-
erent (e.g., me or I) in the items that measured individual-focused TFL, in order to ensure that we were actually measuring
individual-level leadership behavior. Therefore, we contend that individual-focused TFL should be treated as an individual-
level variable and should not be aggregated to the group level, despite the acceptable within-group agreement and between-
group variance.
3.4. Analytic strategy
In our hypothesis testing, two dependent variables (i.e., individual performance and empowerment) were treated as
individual-level variables, whereas the other two (i.e., group performance and collective efficacy) were treated as group-level
variables. We tested Hypotheses 1, 2, 5, and 6 using Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM; Hofmann, 1997; Raudenbush & Bryk,
2002), due to the multilevel nature of our data. HLM models both individual- and group-level residuals, thereby recognizing
the partial interdependence of individuals within the same group. HLM also provides the correct parameter estimates and signif-
icance tests for multilevel and non-independent data by estimating within-group and between-group variances and covariances
separately, and by using the correct standard errors for both within-group (i.e., individual-level) and between-group (i.e., group-
level) effects (Gavin & Hofmann, 2002; Hofmann, 1997). HLM provides accurate and simultaneous estimations of: (a) the direct
effect of individual-focused TFL on individual outcomes (H1); (b) the mediation effect of leader identification (H2) at the individ-
ual level; and (c) the cross-level effects of group-focused TFL behavior on leader identification (H5) and of group identification on
individual-level outcomes (H6). Following Hofmann and Gavin (1998) and Enders and Tofighi (2007), the Level 1 predictors were
grand-mean centered in all analyses. The dependent variables of Hypotheses 3 and 4 were at the group level, making it inappro-
priate to use HLM. Thus, we used Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression to test these two hypotheses (Mathieu & Taylor, 2007).
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive analysis
Table 1 presents the individual- and group-level descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and correlations. To identify control vari-
ables, we first computed zero-order correlations between the demographic variables and outcome variables. For the two
individual-level outcomes, individual performance was not significantly related to any demographic variable; empowerment
was significantly related to three variables: organization tenure (r = .16, p b .05), position tenure (r = .20, p b .01), and age
(r = .21, p b .01). The appropriate demographic variables were then entered as control variables in hypotheses testing.
At the group level, none of the leader demographic variables significantly correlated with any group-level outcomes. Team size
was also not related to any group-level outcomes. Since the data were collected from eight different business divisions in the
company, we also conducted a one-way ANOVA, using business division as a classification variable. Results showed non-
significant F-values for all of the dependent variables. To conserve power, no control variable was included in the group-level re-
gression analyses (Becker, 2005).
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations.
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Individual-level variables (N = 200)

1. Follower gendera .68 .47 –
2. Follower age 41.28 9.73 .13 –
3. Education 3.74 1.32 .18⁎ −.36⁎ –
4. Organization tenure 11.46 8.40 .07 .54⁎ −.27⁎⁎ –
5. Position tenure 5.31 5.00 .03 .50⁎ −.22⁎⁎ .42⁎⁎ –
6. Leader tenure 4.40 4.73 .03 .23⁎ −.10 .38⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎ –
7. Individual-focused TFL 2.70 .80 −.14 .04 −.12 −.02 −.08 −.08 (.95)
8. Leader identification 5.45 1.03 −.05 .07 −.03 .02 −.07 −.01 .58⁎⁎ (.86)
9. Individual performance 3.03 .77 −.03 .06 −.03 .06 .02 .04 .19⁎⁎ .19⁎⁎ (.88)
10. Psychological empowerment 5.88 .59 .02 .21⁎⁎ −.14 .16⁎ .20⁎⁎ .08 .17⁎ .31⁎⁎ .15⁎ (.85)
Group-level variables (N = 60)

1. Leader gendera .88 .32 –
2. Leader age 42.73 7.89 .28⁎ –
3. Leader Education 4.53 1.07 .09 −.30⁎ –
4. Leader organization tenure 14.46 9.36 .12 .72⁎⁎ −.34⁎⁎ –
5. Leader position tenure 5.65 5.56 .17 .54⁎⁎ −.22 .60⁎⁎ –
6. Group size 4.95 1.46 −.30⁎ −.25 −.01 −.17 −.12 –
7. Group-focused TFL 2.66 .66 −.13 −.26⁎ −.03 −.16 −.08 −.06 (.97)b
8. Group identification 5.84 .43 .13 −.02 .02 −.01 .06 −.14 .31⁎ (.86) b
9. Group performance 3.43 .67 −.03 −.09 .08 −.07 .14 −.01 .31⁎ .13 (.89) c
10. Collective efficacy 5.74 .48 .09 −.06 .11 −.04 .11 .03 .28⁎ .51⁎⁎ .35⁎⁎ (.91) b
Note. Numbers 1–10 in the top row correspond to the variables in the respective sections of the table. Internal consistency reliabilities appear in parentheses
along the diagonal.
a
Male = 1; female = 0.
b
The internal consistency reliabilities of the three group-level variables (i.e., group-focused TFL, group identification, and collective efficacy) were calculated at
the individual level of analysis because these variables were measured at the individual level.
c
The internal consistency reliability of group performance was calculated at the group level of analysis, because this variable was measured at the group level.
⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
4.2. Tests of direct and mediation effects
Hypothesis 1 predicted that, at the individual level, individual-focused TFL would be positively related to individual perfor-
mance and empowerment. When testing Hypothesis 1, the HLM model had a random Level 1 coefficient for individual-focused
TFL, however there was no significant variance in the Level 1 slopes, meaning that the slopes relating individual-focused TFL be-
havior to individual performance did not vary significantly across groups. Thus, individual-focused TFL was estimated as a fixed
Level 1 coefficient for all the subsequent HLM models, and the coefficient was not allowed to vary across groups (Raudenbush,
Bryk, Cheong, Congdon, & Toit, 2004). The same pattern of results was found for leader identification; therefore, leader identifi-
cation was also estimated as a fixed Level 1 coefficient for all the HLM models.
As shown in Table 2, HLM revealed that individual-focused TFL was significantly related to individual performance (γ = .19,
p b .05, see Model 3) and empowerment (γ = .13, p b .05, see Model 6), supporting H1a and H1b. Hypothesis 2 stated that leader
identification would mediate the effects of individual-focused TFL on individual performance and empowerment. According to
Baron and Kenny (1986) and Mathieu and Taylor (2007), mediation is supported if three criteria are met: (1) the independent
variable significantly relates to the dependent variables (i.e., individual performance and empowerment), which has been sup-
ported by the test of H1; (2) the independent variable (i.e., individual-focused TFL) significantly relates to the mediator (i.e., lead-
er identification); and (3) the mediator significantly relates to the dependent variables when controlling for the independent
variable. In addition, Sobel's (1982) test was used to examine the significance of the indirect effect when mediation was found.
The results are shown in Table 2. First, individual-focused TFL was positively related to leader identification (γ = .74, p b .01,
see Model 1). Second, as shown in Model 4 in Table 2, when adding leader identification to the regression, leader identification
was significantly related to individual performance (γ = .15, p b .05), whereas individual-focused TFL was no longer related to in-
dividual performance (γ = .08, n.s.). A Sobel test confirmed that the indirect effect of individual-focused TFL on individual perfor-
mance through leader identification was significant (z = 2.24, p b .05). Similarly, as shown in Model 7, when both predictors were
regressed on empowerment, leader identification was significant (γ = .17, p b .01), but individual-focused TFL was not (γ = .01,
n.s.). A Sobel test confirmed that the indirect effect of individual-focused TFL on empowerment through leader identification
was significant (z = 3.14, p b .01). Therefore, H2a and H2b were both supported: leader identification fully mediates the effects
of individual-focused TFL on both individual performance and empowerment.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that, at the group level, group-focused TFL would be positively related to group performance and col-
lective efficacy. We used OLS regression to test H3 (see Table 3). Group-focused TFL was positively related to group performance
(β = .31, p b .05) and collective efficacy (β = .28, p b .05), in accordance with H3a and H3b.
Hypothesis 4 stated that group identification would mediate the effects of group-focused TFL on group performance and col-
lective efficacy. We followed the same procedure as H2 to test H4. First, as shown in Table 3, group-focused TFL was significantly
related to group identification (β = .30, p b .05). Second, when both predictors were regressed on group performance, group iden-
tification was not significant (β = .03, n.s.), but group-focused TFL was (β = .30, p b .05). Thus, H4a was not supported. When
regressed on collective efficacy, group identification was significant (β = .48, p b .01), but group-focused TFL was not (β = .14,
n.s.), lending support for H4b. A Sobel test confirmed that the indirect effect of group-focused TFL on collective efficacy through
group identification was significant (z = 2.09, p b .05). Therefore, group identification fully mediated the effect of group-focused
TFL on collective efficacy.
4.3. Tests of cross-level effects
Hypothesis 5 stated that group-focused TFL would be positively related to leader identification. The Level 1 predictor of leader
identification, individual-focused TFL, was included in the HLM model used to test H5, in order to examine the influence of group-
Table 2
Hierarchical linear modeling results for Hypotheses 1, 2, 5, and 6.
DV = Leader DV = Individual performance DV = Empowerment

identification
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8
Level 1
Intercept 5.45⁎⁎ 4.75⁎⁎ 3.04⁎⁎ 3.04⁎⁎ 1.24 5.89⁎⁎ 5.89⁎⁎ 3.71⁎⁎
Organizational tenure 0.01 0.01 0.01
Position tenure 0.01 0.01 0.01
Age 0.01 0.01 0.01
Individual-focused TFL 0.74⁎⁎ 0.63⁎⁎ 0.19⁎ 0.08 0.07 0.13⁎ 0.01 − 0.01
Leader identification 0.15⁎ 0.13 0.17⁎⁎ 0.14⁎⁎
Level 2
Group-focused TFL 0.26⁎
Group identification 0.31⁎ 0.37⁎⁎
Note. N = 200 team members (Level 1) in 60 teams (Level 2); DV = Dependent Variable; M = Model; Unstandardized estimates are reported.
⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
Table 3
Results of regression analysis for Hypotheses 3 and 4.
Dependent variables
Step1 Step 2 Step 3
Independent variables Group performance Collective efficacy Group identification Group performance Collective efficacy
Group-focused TFL behavior .31⁎ .28⁎ .30⁎ .30⁎ .14

Group identification .03 .48⁎⁎
R2 .09 .08 .09 .10 .29
Standardized coefficients are reported.

⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
focused TFL on leader identification after controlling for the effect of individual-focused TFL (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). As
shown in Table 2, after controlling for individual-focused TFL, group-focused TFL was significantly associated with leader identi-
fication (γ = .26, p b .05, see Model 2), thereby supporting H5.
Hypothesis 6 predicted that group identification would be positively related to individual performance and empowerment. As
shown in Table 2, after controlling for individual-focused TFL and the relevant controls, group identification was related to indi-
vidual performance (γ = .31, p b .05, see Model 5) and empowerment (γ = .37, p b .01, see Model 8), supporting H6.
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical implications
Our first contribution is to provide empirical evidence for an integrative multilevel model of transformational leadership, iden-
tification, and follower outcomes. Our study answers the continual calls for more multilevel studies on both leadership
(Kozlowski & Bell, 2003) and motivation (Chen & Kanfer, 2006). It advances Self-concept Leadership Theory (Kark & Shamir,
2002; Lord et al., 1999; Shamir et al., 1993) by demonstrating that different aspects of leadership (i.e., individual- and group-
focused TFL behaviors) are related to different self-identities in followers (i.e., leader identification and group identification).
Furthermore, this study contributes to TFL research by examining the underlying mechanisms of TFL from a multilevel per-
spective (Kark & Shamir, 2002). We found that leader identification, at the individual level, mediated the relations between
individual-focused behavior and individual performance and empowerment, whereas group identification, at the group level, me-
diated the relation between group-focused TFL and collective efficacy. These results support Yukl's (1999) assertion that TFL may
involve distinct influence processes across different levels. Our study responds to calls for multilevel leadership studies that ex-
plicitly address levels-of-analysis issues in theory building and empirical testing (Yammarino, Dionne, & Chun, 2002;
Yammarino, Dionne, Chun, & Dansereau, 2005).
It should be noted that group identification did not mediate the effect of group-focused TFL on group performance, suggesting
that team members' identification with the group is not sufficient to enhance group performance. Teamwork is a complex process
that involves a variety of different mechanisms. Besides motivational constructs (e.g., group identification), there are also cogni-
tive mechanisms (e.g., transactive memory, team learning) and behavioral mechanisms (e.g., coordination, communication) that
influence group performance (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Future studies should examine if those constructs mediate the effect of
group-focused TFL on group performance.
Our second contribution lies in the two cross-level effects. First, group-focused TFL behavior was positively related to leader
identification. Although group-focused TFL behavior is targeted to group members as a whole, it still has a trickle-down effect
on individual followers. When a leader displays group-focused TFL, followers may feel resonance with the leader, with whom
they share the same values and beliefs. Alternatively, followers may see the leader as a trustworthy and reliable role model to fol-
low, and internalize the leader's values and vision (Kark & Shamir, 2002; Kelman, 1961; Pratt, 1998). It is possible that the group-
focused behavior itself then becomes a part of the “personal charisma” of the leader in the eyes of followers, and builds strong
connections between the leader and individual followers (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Shamir et al., 1993). Contrary to the clear-
cut dichotomy suggested in the literature (Howell & Shamir, 2005), the development of leader and group identification may be
interrelated, rather than opposite. Our results are aligned with those of Kark et al. (2003), indicating that leader and group iden-
tification can be promoted by the same leader behavior.
It should be acknowledged, however, that leader and group identification processes could also be contradictory. For instance, if
the leader is dominant and authoritarian, rather than empowering, and emphasizes his or her private goals and personal ambition
over collective identity and shared vision, followers may personally identify with the leader at the expense of the group (Howell,
1988). The relationship between leader and group identification appears to be more complex than suggested by the literature.
Future research should investigate when one form of identification works with or against the other.
The second cross-level effect demonstrated that group identification was associated with individual performance and empow-
erment. These results extend prior research that reports positive effects of group identification on group-level outcomes, such as
team climate and helping behavior (Riketta & Dick, 2005), yet did not fully explore its cross-level implications on employees'
individual behavior. Group identification can improve individuals' self-esteem and self-efficacy (Ashforth & Mael, 1989), and help
fulfill such crucial individual needs as security and belongingness (Pratt, 1998; Tajfel, 1982). Our results support the contention
that individuals who identify strongly with the group feel more empowered and capable, devote more effort to their own jobs,
and deliver higher levels of individual performance, because they believe their efforts embody the collective identity and shared
values of the team and contribute to the group's effectiveness (Dutton et al., 1994; Shamir et al., 1993; Walumbwa et al., 2008). In
summary, our findings are in line with Chen and Kanfer's (2006) assertion that group-level motivators (e.g., group identification)
incrementally affect individuals over and above individual-level motivators (e.g., leader identification). As such, leaders should
utilize motivating inputs at both levels in order to optimize their influence on followers at the individual level.
Our third contribution is the mediating role of leader identification in TFL processes. Leader identification has been a contro-
versial construct in TFL research. Some researchers argue that strong leader identification could result in followers' unquestioning
obedience and dependence on the leader, which may feed the leader's desire for personal power. This, in turn, may encourage the
leader to abandon ethical and other restraints on his or her power, with detrimental consequences for the organization (Conger &
Kanungo, 1998; Howell, 1988; Howell & Shamir, 2005). In contrast, other researchers propose that individuals have a fundamen-
tal need to identify with others as a means of attaining human connections. Such relational identification serves various functions,
such as reducing uncertainty, enhancing self-esteem, and providing mutual understanding and social support (Aron & Aron,
2000; Brewer & Roccas, 2001).
The impact of leader identification on followers may depend on the leader's behavior. Leader identification built upon domi-
nant and authoritarian behavior may lead to followers' “hyper-compliance” (Zablocki, 1999) with the leader (Howell, 1988).
Leadership identification based on developmental and supportive behavior may create a sense of empowerment in followers
and motivate them to perform well in order to maintain a good relationship with the leader (Kark & Shamir, 2002; Kelman,
1958, 1961; Lord et al., 1999). The present study measured the latter set of leadership behaviors. Our findings confirm previous
research (Chen et al., 2007; Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2000) that higher levels of individual performance and empowerment can
grow from close relationships with a leader. However, it is possible that followers may develop two forms (negative vs. positive)
of leader identification, with different consequences (e.g., compliance vs. independence). The nature and consequence of leader
identification may also depend on the values (e.g., self-enhancement vs. self-transcendent values) and self-concept salience (in-
dependent vs. collective self) of the leader with whom the follower identifies (Sosik et al., 2009). Future research should further
investigate the self-concept content of both the leader and follower and how they relate to identification processes.
5.2. Managerial implications
The current study has two key implications for managers. First, since teamwork is increasingly important in today's organiza-
tions, leaders are now expected to drive individual performance and group performance at the same time (Kozlowski & Bell,
2003). Our study indicates that different sets of leadership behavior are needed to motivate individual followers and teams as
a whole, respectively. It is important for leaders to understand the goals they are expected to achieve and to exhibit appropriate
leadership behaviors in order to accomplish these goals through their followers' efforts and behavior. For example, if the leader is
held accountable for team results, but the team has low morale and cohesion, he or she may need to exhibit group-focused TFL
behavior in order to promote collective efficacy and improve group performance. In contrast, if the leader is accountable for re-
sults produced by individual contributors and learns that a certain follower is demotivated, the leader may need to display
individual-focused TFL behavior in order to enhance the follower's feeling of empowerment and individual performance.
Simultaneously leading individuals and teams is a daunting task for today's leaders, given the multiple challenges they face.
How can leaders possibly juggle these onerous demands? The second implication of our results suggests that leaders can leverage
their time and energy by engaging in group TFL to promote followers' identification with the leader and the group, and enhance
both individual and team performance. Specifically, team leaders should first and foremost focus on group-focused TFL behavior,
because it can enhance group identification and boost team performance; group identification in turn improves the performance
of individual followers. In other words, group-focused TFL behavior has both direct benefit to the group as a whole, as well as in-
direct benefit to individual followers. Our findings are aligned with the original TFL theories by Burns (1978) and Bass (1985),
which posit that the most significant effect of TFL is to inspire followers to transcend their self-interests for the good of the
group or organization.
5.3. Limitations and future research
Our study has several limitations. First, although we rely on theories to justify the effects of group identification on collective
efficacy and of leader identification on empowerment, these four variables were measured at the same time (i.e., Time 2), which
precluded us from drawing conclusions of causality. We cannot rule out the possibility that collective efficacy (or empowerment)
may emerge at the same time or even before group identification (or leader identification). Future research should use longitu-
dinal design to test the temporal ordering of the variables. Second, the majority (88%) of the leaders in our sample were male,
which may constrain the generalizability of our results. Future research should further examine if the findings from our study
can be replicated in organizations with more female leaders. Third, due to the relatively low ICC2 values of the three shared
group-level variables (i.e., group-focused TFL, group identification, and collective efficacy), results for those variables should be
interpreted with caution. By definition, ICC2 is an assessment of the reliability of a group mean (Bliese, 2000), and is influenced
by group size. Our inferences would be more reliable and conclusive if the results could be replicated by other studies with bigger
group size and higher ICC2 values. Fourth, we asked the leaders to rate their own teams' group performance. Such ratings may be
subject to self-serving bias, because some leaders may inflate their ratings to make themselves look like a more “effective” man-
ager. Future research should use objective measures or ask the supervisor of the leader to rate group performance.
Last but not least, another direction for future research is to further examine the effect of differentiated leadership on fol-
lowers. Previous research has demonstrated that transformational leaders treat followers differently and form unique one-on-
one relationships with each follower, independent of the group (Chun et al., 2009; Yammarino et al., 1997). In other words, a
leader may have stronger relations with some followers than with others. However, Wu et al.'s (2010) study found that such dif-
ferentiated superior–subordinate relations may damage group effectiveness at the group level of analysis. Specifically, they
reported that when transformational leaders exhibited varying levels of individual-focused behavior across different group mem-
bers, such differentiated leadership behavior, at the group level of analysis, dampened group effectiveness by generating diver-
gence in leader identification and member self-efficacy. Future research should examine the cross-level effect of differentiated
individual-focused leadership on individual-level outcomes such as individual work behavior or attitudes.
In conclusion, this study synthesizes TFL, Self-concept, and Social Identity theories to examine leadership processes from a
multilevel perspective. It identifies two mediating mechanisms of TFL, namely leader identification and group identification, at
the individual- and group-levels respectively. The work examines the interplay between the two levels by demonstrating two
cross-level effects. Findings from the current investigation could assist leaders make informed decisions about what, when, and
how to use individual- or group-focused TFL depending on their context and the results they are expected to deliver. This
study sets the stage for further research on multilevel leadership.
References
Andersen, S., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109, 619–644.
Andersen, S., Reznik, I., & Chen, S. (1997). The self in relation to others: Cognitive and motivational underpinnings. In J. G. Snodgrass, & R. L. Thompson (Eds.), The
self across psychology: Self-recognition, self-awareness, and the self-concept (pp. 233–275). New York: New York Academy of Science.
Aron, A., & Aron, E. (2000). Self-expansion motivation and including other in the self. In W. Ickes, & S. Duck (Eds.), The social psychology of personal relationships
(pp. 109–128). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual and sampler set (3rd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S., Dumdum, R., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2001). Virtual teams: Implications for e-leadership and team development. In M. London (Ed.), How
people evaluate others in organizations (pp. 337–358). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment
and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951–968.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Collective efficacy. In A. Banudra (Ed.), Self-efficacy: The exercise of control (pp. 477–525). New York: Freeman.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consider-
ations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 83, 377–391.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 207–217.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic? In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 20. (pp. 65–122)New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organiza-
tional Research Methods, 8, 274–289.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski
(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management
Journal, 46, 554–571.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Self-reliance and some conditions that promote it. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 130, 201–210.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Loss, sadness and depression. Attachment and loss, vol. 3, . New York: Basic Books.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93.
Brewer, M. B., & Roccas, S. (2001). Individual values, social identity, and optimal distinctiveness. In C. Sedikides, & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Individual self, relational self,
collective self (pp. 219–237). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Cameron, J. E. (2004). A three-factor model of social identity. Self and Identity, 3, 239–262.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246.
Chen, G., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self-and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied
Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. (2006). Towards a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 223–267.
Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied
Chun, J. U., Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Sosik, J. J., & Moon, H. K. (2009). Leadership across hierarchical levels: Multiple levels of management and multiple
levels of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 689–707.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471–482.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 747–767.
Cooper, D., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2010). Identification in organizations: The role of self-concept orientations and identification motives. Academy of Management
Review, 35, 516–538.
Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. (2002). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: The impact of organizational identification, identity, and image on the
cooperative behaviors of physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 507–537.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263.
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, 735–744.
Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance.
Academy of Management Review, 29, 459–478.
Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12,
121–138.
Flum, H. (2001). Relational dimensions in career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 1–16.
Gavin, M. B., & Hofmann, D. A. (2002). Using hierarchical linear modeling to investigate the moderating influence of leadership climate. The Leadership Quarterly,
13, 15–33.
Goodman, J. S., & Blum, T. C. (1996). Assessing the non-random sampling effects of subject attrition in longitudinal research. Journal of Management, 22, 627–652.
Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32, 393–417.
Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93, 48–58.
Grant, A. M., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). I won't let you down… or will I? Core self-evaluations, other-orientation, anticipated guilt and gratitude, and job per-
formance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 108–121.
Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 87–106.
Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psy-
chology, Vol. 3. (pp. 199–267)Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23, 723–744.
Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24,
623–641.
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184–200.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1990). Social motivation, self-esteem and social identity. In D. Abrams, & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and crit-
ical advances (pp. 28–47). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt, & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189–207). Carbondale, IL: Southern
Illinois University Press.
House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories. In M. C. R. Ayman (Ed.), Leadership theory and
research perspectives and directions (pp. 577–594). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Howell, J. M. (1988). Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leadership in organizations. In J. A. Conger, R. N. Kanungo, & Associates (Eds.), Charis-
matic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 213–236). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Re-
view, 30, 96–112.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
755–768.
Jung, D., & Sosik, J. J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups: The role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group
performance. Small Group Research, 33, 313–336.
Jung, D., Yammarino, F. J., & Lee, J. K. (2009). Moderating role of subordinates' attitudes on transformational leadership and effectiveness: A multi-cultural and
multi-level perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 586–603.
Kahn, W. A. (1996). Secure base relationships at work. In D. T. H. Associates (Ed.), The career is dead-long live the career: A relational approach to careers
(pp. 158–179). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kahn, W. A. (1998). Relational systems at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 39–76.
Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2002). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational and collective selves and further effects on followers. In B. J. Avolio,
& F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 67–91). Amsterdam: JAI Press.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246–254.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for leadership: A longitudinal study of research and development project
team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 202.
Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51–60.
Kelman, H. C. (1961). Process of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57–78.
Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195–229.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In D. R. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimmoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology:
Industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 12. (pp. 333–375)London: Wiley.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., McHugh, P. P., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). A dynamic theory of leadership and team effectiveness: Developmental and
task contingent leader roles. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, Vol. 14. (pp. 253–306)Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815–852.
Liao, H., & Chuang, A. (2007). Transforming service employees and climate: A multilevel, multisource examination of transformational leadership in building
long-term service relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1006–1019.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, inter-
personal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 407–416.
Lim, B. C., & Ployhart, R. E. (2004). Transformational leadership: Relations to the five factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 89, 610–621.
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower self-identity. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Freiberg, S. J. (1999). Understanding the dynamics of leadership: The role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 167–203.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13, 103–123.
Markham, S. E., Yammarino, F. J., Murry, W. D., & Palanski, M. E. (2010). Leader-member exchange, shared values, and performance: Agreement and levels of anal-
ysis do matter. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 469–480.
Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2007). A framework for testing meso-mediational relationships in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 141–172.
Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of
Management, 36, 5–39.
Mumford, M. D., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Vision and mental models: The case of charismatic and ideological leadership. In B. J. Avolio, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.),
Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 109–142). Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recom-
mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction,
and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.
Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be: Central questions in organizational identification. In D. A. Whetten, & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building
theory through conversations (pp. 171–207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 329–354.
Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). Refining individualized consideration: Distinguishing developmental leadership and supportive leadership. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 37–61.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R. T., & Toit, M. D. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software
International.
Riggs, M. L., & Knight, P. A. (1994). The impact of perceived group success–failure on motivational beliefs and attitudes: A causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology,
79, 755–766.
Riketta, M., & Dick, R. V. (2005). Foci of attachment in organizations: A meta-analytic comparison of the strength and correlates of workgroup versus organiza-
tional identification and commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 490–510.
Schriesheim, C. A., Wu, J. B., & Scandura, T. A. (2009). A meso measure? Examination of the levels of analysis of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ).
The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 604–616.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577–594.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Brainin, E., & Popper, M. (2000). Leadership and social identification in military units: Direct and indirect relationships. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 30, 612–640.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates' attitudes, unit characteristics, and
superiors' appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 387–409.
Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32,
9–32.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology
(pp. 290–312). Washington DC: American Sociological Association.
Sosik, J. J., & Jung, D. I. (2010). Full range leadership development: Pathways for people, profit and planet. New York: Routledge.
Sosik, J. J., Jung, D., & Dinger, S. L. (2009). Values in authentic action: Examining the roots and rewards of altruisitic leadership. Group & Organization Management,
34, 395–431.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38,
1442–1465.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology
of intergroup relations (pp. 61–76). London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations
(pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24).
Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management
Review, 15, 666–681.
van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 243–296.
van Knippenberg, D., & Schie, E. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 137–147.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Zhu, W. (2008). How transformational leadership weaves its influence on individual job performance: The role of identification
and efficacy beliefs. Personnel Psychology, 61, 793–825.
Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Lawler, J. J., & Shi, K. (2004). The role of collective efficacy in the relations between transformational leadership and work outcomes.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 515–530.
Wang, X. -H., & Howell, J. M. (2010). Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational leadership on followers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1134–1144.
Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management
Journal, 41, 540–555.
Worchel, S., Rothgerber, H., Day, E. A., Hart, D., & Butemeyer, J. (1998). Social identity and individual productivity within groups. British Journal of Social Psychology,
37, 389–414.
Wu, J. B., Tsui, A. S., & Kinicki, A. J. (2010). Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 90–106.
Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. Human Relations, 43, 975–995.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2008). Multi-level nature of and multi-level approaches to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 135–141.
Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S., & Chun, J. U. (2002). Transformational and charismatic leadership: A levels-of-analysis review of theory, measurement, data analysis,
and inferences. In L. L. Neider, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership: Research in management, Vol. 2. (pp. 23–63)Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Chun, J. U., & Dansereau, F. (2005). Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-of-the-science review. The Leadership Quarterly, 16,
879–919.
Yammarino, F. J., Dubinsky, A. J., Comer, L. B., & Jolson, M. A. (1997). Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis
perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 205–222.
Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1998). Transformational and contingent reward leadership: Individual, dyad, and group levels of analysis. The
Leadership Quarterly, 9, 27–54.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285–305.
Zablocki, B. D. (1999). Hyper compliance in charismatic groups. In D. D. Franks, & T. S. Thomas (Eds.), Mind, brain, and society: Toward a neurosociology of emotion
(pp. 287–310). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Zaccaro, S. J., Blair, V., Peterson, C., & Zazanis, M. (1995). Collective efficacy. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation and adjustment: Theory, research and ap-
plication (pp. 305–328). New York: Plenum Press.
Zaccaro, S. J., Heinen, B., & Shuffler, M. (2009). Team leadership and team effectiveness. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex
organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 83–111). New York: Psychology Press.

A Multilevel Study of Transformational Leadership, Identification, and Follower Outcomes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Multilevel Study of Transformational Leadership, Identification, and Follower Outcomes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 775–790

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

A multilevel study of transformational leadership, identiﬁcation, and

2. Theory and hypothesis

2.1. Transformational leadership and followers' self-concept

Individual-Focused Leader – Individual Performance

Fig. 1. A multilevel model of transformational leadership, identification, and performance.

2.2. Individual-level transformational leadership process

2.3. Group-level transformational leadership process

2.4. Cross-level effects

3.1. Sample and procedure

3.2.1. Transformational leadership behavior

3.2.2. Leader identiﬁcation

3.2.3. Group identiﬁcation

3.2.4. Individual-level outcomes

3.2.5. Group-level outcomes

3.2.6. Control variables

3.3. Aggregation tests

3.4. Analytic strategy

4.1. Descriptive analysis

Individual-level variables (N = 200)

Group-level variables (N = 60)

4.2. Tests of direct and mediation effects

4.3. Tests of cross-level effects

DV = Leader DV = Individual performance DV = Empowerment

Step1 Step 2 Step 3

Group-focused TFL behavior .31⁎ .28⁎ .30⁎ .30⁎ .14

Standardized coefficients are reported.

5.1. Theoretical implications

5.2. Managerial implications

5.3. Limitations and future research

You might also like