Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 81e91

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep

How transformational leadership and employee motivation combine

to predict employee proenvironmental behaviors in China
Laura M. Graves a, *, Joseph Sarkis a,1, Qinghua Zhu b, 2
a
Graduate School of Management, Clark University, 950 Main St., Worcester, MA 01610, USA
b
School of Business Management, Faculty of Management and Economics, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, Liaoning Province 116024, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Seeking to build a deeper understanding of the determinants of employees’ proenvironmental behaviors
Available online 29 May 2013 (PEBs), we tested the linkages between transformational leadership on environmental issues, employees’
autonomous and external motivation to perform PEBs, and employees’ PEBs. Data from 294 employees in
Keywords: China indicated that the environmental transformational leadership provided by employees’ managers
Motivation was associated with increases in employees’ autonomous and external motivation. Autonomous moti-
Proenvironmental behavior
vation was, in turn, positively related to PEBs. The relationship between external motivation and PEBs
Self-determination theory
was moderated by environmental transformational leadership. When environmental transformational
Sustainability
Transformational leadership
leadership was high, external motivation was positively related to PEBs. When environmental trans-
formational leadership was low, external motivation was negatively related to PEBs. Environmental
transformational leadership also had a strong, direct positive relationship with PEBs. Overall, our results
suggest that interplay of environmental transformational leadership, autonomous motivation, and
external motivation is important in influencing employees’ PEBs.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction have focused primarily on organizational-level environmental

Today’s organizations are increasingly implementing environ-
mental initiatives such as environmental management systems
(i.e., total quality environmental management, ISO 14001), green
purchasing, eco-design, recycling, and energy conservation.
Although new processes and technologies are vital to the success of
these initiatives, the readiness of individual employees to actively
embrace proenvironmental behaviors (PEBs) that sustain the nat-
ural environment is also important (Boiral, 2009; Daily, Bishop, &
Govindarajulu, 2009). Employees’ PEBs are conceptualized as a
broad set of environmentally responsible activities such as learning
more about the environment, developing and applying ideas for
reducing the company’s environmental impact, developing green
processes and products, recycling and reusing, and questioning
practices that hurt the environment.
To date, the PEBs of individual employees have received limited
research attention (Boiral, 2009; Daily et al., 2009); researchers
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 508 793 7466; fax: þ1 508 793 8822.
E-mail addresses: lgraves@clarku.edu (L.M. Graves), jsarkis@clarku.edu
(J. Sarkis), zhuqh@dlut.edu.cn (Q. Zhu).
1
Tel.: þ1 508 793 7466; fax: þ1 508 793 8822.
2
Tel.: þ86 411 8470 6018; fax: þ86 411 8470 8342.
strategies and performance rather than employees’ behaviors.
Thus, we seek to enhance understanding of employees’ PEBs by
examining the processes that facilitate such behaviors. In particular,
we explore the roles of leadership and employee motivation in
fostering PEBs.
We focus on the environmental transformational leadership
provided by employees’ immediate managers. The values-based,
inspirational nature of transformational leadership (e.g., Bass,
1985; Bass, Avolio, & Atwater, 1996) makes it suitable for stimu-
lating environmentally responsible behaviors (Egri & Herman,
2000; Fernández, Junquera, & Ordiz, 2006). The leadership pro-
vided by immediate managers is especially important; these
managers are typically highly visible to employees, and may have a
substantial influence on their PEBs (Anderson, Shivarajan, & Blau,
2005; Ramus & Steger, 2000; Robertson & Barling, 2013).
We also introduce employee motivation as a key factor in
fostering PEBs. Despite its fundamental importance for stimulating
employee behavior in organizations (Gagné & Deci, 2005),
employee motivation has received scant attention in the corporate
sustainability literature. We use self-determination theory (SDT)
(Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000) as a framework for
studying employee motivation to engage in PEBs. SDT has been
used to study motivation in the workplace (e.g., Bono & Judge,
2003; Gagné, Forest, Gilbert, Aubé, Morin, & Malorni, 2010; Otis &

0272-4944/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.05.002
82 L.M. Graves et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 81e91
Pelletier, 2005). It has also been applied to environmental behavior
in community settings (e.g., Osbaldiston & Sheldon, 2003; Pelletier,
2002; Pelletier, Tuson, Green-Demers, Noels, & Beaton, 1998).
In our study, we explore how environmental transformational
leadership and employee motivation combine to predict em-
ployees’ PEBs. Both the transformational leadership (Bass, 1985;
Bono & Judge, 2003) and SDT (e.g., Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004; Gagné
& Deci, 2005; Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, & De Witte, 2008)
literatures suggest that the interplay of environmental trans-
formational leadership and employee motivation is likely to be
critical in shaping employees’ PEBs. Integrating these literatures,
we posit that environmental transformational leadership,
employee motivation, and PEBs are linked through a complex set of
relationships. In the sections below, we first provide theoretical
background on transformational leadership and self-determination
theory. We then give an overview of our model, followed by a more
detailed discussion of the proposed relationships.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Transformational leadership
Transformational leadership emphasizes the symbolic behavior
of the leader (e.g., inspirational, visionary messages; values) as
opposed to economic transactions between the leader and
employee (Avolio, 1999; Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009; Bass,
1985; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Transformational leaders focus
employee attention on the long-term goals of the group or orga-
nization, and instill a sense of higher purpose. Employees inter-
nalize the values championed by the leader and come to see their
work as congruent with their own self-concepts (e.g., Bono & Judge,
2003; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002; Shamir, House, & Arthur,
1993). They are motivated by the desire for self-expression and self-
consistency.
Extending the notion of transformational leadership to leader-
ship on environmental issues, we would expect managers who
exhibit environmental transformational leadership to communicate a
clear and coherent environmental vision for their area of re-
sponsibility. They might act as role models for employees by
sharing their environmental values, discussing the importance of
sustainability, and taking actions that demonstrate commitment to
addressing environmental problems. They might motivate em-
ployees by providing an image of a future where work activities are
more environmentally sustainable, talking about what the em-
ployees must do to create this future, and conveying confidence in
employees’ capabilities. Further, environmental transformational
managers may encourage employees to question assumptions
about environmental issues and consider new and diverse ideas for
resolving these issues. They might also develop employees’ ca-
pacity to address environmental problems by assessing each em-
ployee’s development needs and providing individually-
appropriate learning opportunities.
2.2. Self-determination theory
Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Ryan &
Deci, 2002) is a broad theory of human growth and development
that focuses on the interplay between the active, growth-oriented
individual and the social environment. SDT posits that the type of
motivation possessed by individuals is an important determinant of
behavior. It identifies several types of motivation, and groups the
types into two categories e autonomous motivation and controlled
motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2002; Sheldon & Elliot, 1998, 1999).
Autonomous and controlled motivation are not mutually exclusive;
they may co-occur.
In autonomous motivation, individuals pursue activities that are
consistent or concordant with the underlying self (Deci & Ryan,
2000; Gagné & Deci, 2005; Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2005;
Sheldon & Elliot 1998, 1999). It includes identified motivation,
which involves pursuing an activity because it matches one’s
values and goals, and intrinsic motivation, which involves per-
forming an activity because it is inherently interesting or plea-
surable (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Employees whose PEBs stem from
identified motivation pursue these behaviors because they are
committed to environmental sustainability. Employees who are
intrinsically motivated to perform PEBs do so because they expe-
rience these behaviors as personally interesting or fun (e.g., finding
pleasure in redesigning a product to reduce its environmental
impact).
In controlled motivation, individuals’ actions result from a belief
that they must or should act (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagné & Deci,
2005; Judge et al., 2005; Sheldon & Elliot, 1998, 1999). It includes
external motivation, which involves pursuing an activity because of
external contingencies (e.g., pay, approval, or threat of punishment),
and introjected motivation, which involves performing an activity to
maintain one’s ego. Employees who are externally motivated to
perform PEBs may be attempting to meet job requirements (e.g.,
environmental management system requirements), obtain rewards
and approval, or avoid sanctions. Employees whose PEBs stem
from introjected motivation may be seeking to protect themselves
from the negative self-assessments and feelings that might occur if
they fail to perform PEBs (e.g., believing they are “bad” employees,
guilt).
The SDT literature (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Judge et al., 2005)
suggests that the self-consistent or self-expressive nature of
autonomous motivation facilitates employee performance. In
contrast, the feeling of being required to act that characterizes
controlled motivation is seen as inhibiting performance. Like
transformational leadership scholars, SDT researchers stress the
influence of leadership on employee motivation (Baard et al., 2004;
Gagné & Deci, 2005; Otis & Pelletier, 2005). In particular, they note
that leader behaviors that support employee autonomy (e.g., giving
employees some choice of tasks, encouraging initiative, informa-
tional feedback) encourage autonomous motivation.
In examining employee motivation to engage in PEBs, we focus
on autonomous motivation, as well as the external motivation
component of controlled motivation. Although SDT scholars ques-
tion the value of controlled motivation, we believe it is important to
consider the effects of external motivation; such motivation is
likely to be common among employees if organizations use envi-
ronmental management systems and reward programs to motivate
PEBs (Anderson et al., 2005; Ramus, 2002).
3. Hypothesized model
Our model, shown in Fig. 1, suggests employees’ PEBs are
influenced by their immediate managers’ environmental trans-
formational leadership and employees’ autonomous and external
motivation to perform PEBs. We posit that leadership is related to
autonomous motivation and external motivation to engage in PEBs,
which, in turn, are linked to performance of PEBs. In addition, we
expect environmental transformational leadership to moderate the
relationship between external motivation and PEBs. We also
believe that leadership will be directly related to PEBs. Thus, our
model is a partial mediational model with an additional moder-
ating relationship.
Detailed discussion of the relationships shown in the model
is provided below. We focus primarily on the relationships
between managers’ environmental transformational leadership
and employee motivation, as well as the subsequent linkages
 L.M. Graves et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 81e91
Autonomous
motivation
Environmental
External
transformational
motivation
leadership
Fig. 1. Hypothesized model.
between motivation and PEBs. We briefly discuss the direct rela-
tionship between transformational leadership and PEBs.
3.1. Relationship between transformational leadership and
autonomous motivation
We posit that environmental transformational leadership will
be associated with increases in autonomous motivation to perform
PEBs. As noted earlier, transformational leaders enhance em-
ployees’ internalization of organizational values and increase their
feelings of self-expression in the work role (e.g., Bono & Judge,
2003; Dvir et al., 2002; Shamir et al., 1993). We believe that envi-
ronmental transformational leadership will allow employees to
experience PEBs as self-consistent or self-concordant thereby
facilitating autonomous motivation.
Environmental transformational leaders are likely to talk about
the importance of environmental sustainability, present a vision of
a sustainable future, and talk passionately and confidently about
what needs to be accomplished (Daily et al., 2009; Egri & Herman,
2000; Walumbwa, Avolio, & Zhu, 2008). They are likely to articulate
environmental goals by providing ideological explanations that
emphasize higher-order values (e.g., health, a better planet for
future generations). Employees may accept and internalize the
values conveyed by leaders, thereby increasing the importance of
these higher-order values in employees’ identities and making
environmental activities more meaningful to employees (Bono &
Judge, 2003; Jung & Avolio, 2000; Shamir et al., 1993; Shamir,
Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998). Ultimately, employees may
personally “own” proenvironmental values and goals, leading to
feelings of autonomy or personal volition.
Further, the transformational leader’s confidence in the ach-
ievability of environmental goals, emphasis on new approaches to
environmental problems, and efforts to develop each employee’s
abilities are likely to increase the degree to which employees feel
competent to own and address environmental problems (Avolio,
Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Also, the
leader’s position as a role model on environmental sustainability
and efforts to strengthen each individual’s capacity to address
environmental issues will make it likely that employees will con-
nect with the leader and internalize the leader’s environmental
goals. Overall, environmental transformational leadership
should allow employees to experience PEBs as congruent with
their interests, values, and goals, thereby facilitating autonomous
motivation.
83
PEBs
Based on the above discussion, we propose that:
Hypothesis 1. Environmental transformational leadership will be
positively related to employees’ autonomous motivation to perform
PEBs.
3.2. Relationship between transformational leadership and external
motivation
We posit that environmental transformational leadership will
be positively related to external motivation to engage in PEBs.
Although the literature suggests that transformational leaders
emphasize internal rewards and motivation (e.g., Bono & Judge,
2003; Shamir et al., 1993), it also notes that they may make use
of external rewards and motivation. In fact, some scholars posit that
the use of external rewards to recognize followers who meet ex-
pectations provides the foundation for transformational leadership
(Bass, 1998; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Moreover, there is substantial
evidence that transformational leadership behaviors co-occur with
behaviors such as setting expectations and administering
performance-based rewards (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Thus, envi-
ronmental transformational leaders may utilize external rewards
and motivation as a means for motivating employees’ PEBs.
Further, some of the elements of environmental trans-
formational leadership may enhance external motivation. For
instance, the environmental transformational leader’s focus on
developing employees’ capabilities may facilitate external motiva-
tion by increasing competence. Employees who feel competent to
perform PEBs may be more motivated by the presence of external
rewards because they believe they can perform the behaviors
required to attain them. In addition, employees’ deep connections
with environmental transformational leaders may increase their
desire to gain leaders’ approval by performing PEBs.
Based on the above discussion, we posit that:
Hypothesis 2. Environmental transformational leadership will be
positively related to employees’ external motivation to perform PEBs.
3.3. Relationship between autonomous motivation and PEBs
We propose that employees’ autonomous motivation will be
positively related to their PEBs. Autonomously-motivated envi-
ronmental activities are consistent with individuals’ values, goals,
and interests (Judge et al., 2005; Sheldon & Elliot, 1998, 1999). As a
result, employees will engage in PEBs spontaneously and without
84 L.M. Graves et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 81e91
coercion or reward; their activities will be experienced as volun-
tary. The self-consistent, voluntary nature of their PEBs is likely to
create feelings of personal engagement, which boost task effort,
persistence and performance (Bono & Judge, 2003; Judge et al.,
2005; Ryan & Deci, 2001; Sheldon & Elliot, 1998, 1999).
The positive outcomes of autonomous motivation have been
documented in educational, health care and work settings (see
Bono & Judge, 2003; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Studies
of students’ environmental behaviors (e.g., reusing, recycling,
buying environmentally friendly products, and energy conserva-
tion) suggest that autonomous motivation is positively associated
with the frequency of environmental behaviors (e.g., Osbaldiston &
Sheldon, 2003; Pelletier, 2002; Pelletier et al., 1998).
Autonomous motivation may be important for performance of
PEBs in organizations. Employees’ PEBs are likely to be cognitively
complex tasks that demand substantial creativity and innovation,
cognitive flexibility, and problem solving (e.g., introducing new
environmental management systems, designing green products)
(Gagné & Deci, 2005). Such tasks require the high levels of
involvement and persistence associated with autonomous moti-
vation (Pelletier, 2002). Thus, we propose that:
Hypothesis 3. Employee autonomous motivation will be positively
related to employee PEBs.
3.4. Relationship between external motivation and PEBs e moderating
role of leadership
SDT implies that external motivation is detrimental to per-
formance of PEBs. It suggests that individuals are unlikely to
persist with externally-motivated behaviors because these be-
haviors are not “owned” by the individual and depend on the
continual presence of rewards and punishments (Deci & Ryan,
2000; Gagné & Deci, 2005; Judge et al., 2005; Sheldon & Elliot,
1998, 1999). In addition, external motivation may create feelings
of pressure that interfere with performance, particularly for
complex tasks.
Research evidence concerning the link between external moti-
vation and performance of PEBs is ambiguous. Organizational
studies have yielded nonsignificant correlations between em-
ployees’ external motivation for work and their job performance
(e.g., Bono & Judge, 2003; Millette & Gagné, 2008). Similarly,
community-based studies have found predominantly nonsignifi-
cant relationships between residents’ external motivation to
engage in environmental behaviors and performance of these be-
haviors (e.g., Green-Demers, Pelletier, & Ménard, 1997; Pelletier
et al., 1998).
This ambiguity regarding the association between external
motivation and performance may be due to inadequate attention to
the role of situational factors, particularly leadership. We believe that
environmental transformational leadership shapes the relationship
between external motivation and PEBs (Eisenberger, Pierce,
Cameron, 1999; Gagné & Deci, 2005). More specifically, we posit
that the relationship between external motivation and PEBs will be
moderated by environmental transformational leadership such that
external motivation is positively related to PEBs when environ-
mental transformational leadership is high but negatively related to
PEBs when environmental transformational leadership is low.
We suggest that environmental transformational leadership
alters the impact of external motivation by influencing employees’
interpretations of external rewards, and ultimately, the quality of
their external motivation. Rewards may be interpreted by em-
ployees as controlling (manipulative) or as providing information
about employees’ competence (Eisenberger et al., 1999; Gagné &
Deci, 2005). Rewards are controlling when they create pressure to
achieve specific outcomes and reduce employees’ feelings of au-
tonomy or personal causation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Ryan &
Deci, 2002). In contrast, rewards provide competence information
when they acknowledge superior performance but do not exert
control of employees’ thoughts, behaviors, and feelings. Employees
interpret rewards based on the manner in which they are designed
and administered (Deci et al., 1999; Eisenberger et al., 1999; Ryan &
Deci, 2002).
Environmental transformational leaders may administer re-
wards in a manner that provides employees with competence in-
formation. They are likely to ask employees to tackle significant,
challenging PEBs. Employees will believe that it is necessary to
perform PEBs at a high standard, and will view the receipt of
external rewards for performing PEBs as a sign of competence and
task mastery. Thus, employees who are externally motivated in the
presence of environmental transformational leaders may be
seeking to confirm their competence and task mastery rather than
simply pursuing rewards or avoiding sanctions (Eisenberger et al.,
1999). Seeking feelings of competence and mastery is likely to
have a host of positive effects on performance of PEBs; employees
are likely to set difficult goals, solicit feedback for improving per-
formance, experience more positive emotions, persist with the
task, and, ultimately, perform better (McGregor & Elliot, 2002;
Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2006). The result should be a positive link
between external motivation and PEBs.
In contrast, leaders who are low in environmental trans-
formational leadership may administer external rewards in a
manner that provides employees with little information about
competence and creates feelings of control. Leaders are unlikely to
ask employees to perform PEBs that stretch their capabilities.
Instead, employees may be asked to perform trivial, mundane ac-
tivities that are not valued by the leader (Eisenberger et al., 1999).
Obviously, obtaining external rewards for performance of such PEBs
provides employees with little information about their competence
(Eisenberger et al., 1999). Thus, employees will be seeking external
rewards solely for the sake of the rewards. They may perceive the
rewards as causing or controlling their behavior and will be un-
likely to persist with the performance of PEBs over time. They will
also be unlikely to set difficult goals or seek feedback to improve
their mastery of PEBs.
Thus, we propose that:
Hypothesis 4. Environmental transformational leadership will
moderate the effect of external motivation on PEBs. When environ-
mental transformational leadership is high, external motivation will be
positively related to PEBs. When environmental transformational
leadership is low, external motivation will be negatively related
to PEBs.
3.5. Direct relationship between environmental transformational
leadership and PEBs
Although it is not the primary focus of our work, we also expect
environmental transformational leadership to be directly and
positively linked to employees’ PEBs. The environmental trans-
formational leader’s vision, high expectations, and ability to inspire
and develop employees should directly enhance employees’ PEBs
(Bass, 1985; Bass et al., 1996; Ramus & Killmer, 2007; Ramus &
Steger, 2000). Given the importance they attach to environmental
sustainability, environmental transformational leaders may also
facilitate PEBs by providing employees with the resources (e.g.,
people, equipment, processes, and procedures) they need to
perform (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Thus, we posit:
Hypothesis 5. Environmental transformational leadership will have
a direct positive relationship with employee PEBs.
 L.M. Graves et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 81e91
4. Study context
We test our model using data from employees in several Chinese
organizations. Environmental issues are particularly salient to
Chinese organizations today. The Chinese government has recently
implemented numerous environmental regulations and invested in
environmental technology and support programs (Stalley & Yang,
2006; Zhu, Geng, Sarkis, & Lai, 2011). Moreover, the integration of
China’s economy into global industrial networks and supply chains
has led to international pressure on Chinese organizations to
address environmental problems (Zeng & Eastin, 2007). An emer-
gent middle and upper class in China has also created pressures on
organizations to focus on quality of life issues, including environ-
mental concerns (Reusswig & Isensee, 2009).
Given the Western origins of the leadership and motivation
constructs included in our model, some might question the appli-
cability of our model in China (Walumbwa, Wang, Lawler, & Shi,
2004; Wang & Walumbwa, 2007). China is characterized by
high levels of hierarchy and collectivism, which, at face value,
seem antithetical to the notions of transformational leadership
and autonomous motivation. Yet, a growing body of research sup-
ports the applicability of both transformational leadership (e.g.,
Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003; Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen,
2005) and SDT (Chirkov, Ryan, Kim, & Kaplan, 2003; Vansteenkiste,
Zhou, Lens, & Soenens, 2005) in China.
5. Method
5.1. Subjects and procedure
We invited 510 employees at four, global organizations in China
to complete a voluntary, anonymous survey containing the study
variables. All employees worked in the same geographical area. A
cross-section of employees was selected by each organization
based on employee gender, age, and education; employees needed
to have a sufficient education to understand the survey. We
received 309 (60.5%) responses. Due to missing data, only 294 (165
men, 129 women) of the responses were usable.
There were 75 respondents from a retailer, 37 respondents from a
high-tech manufacturer, 96 respondents from an information tech-
nology firm, and 86 respondents from an energy supplier. On
average, respondents were 31.9 years of age (SD ¼ 7.62) and had 9.7
years of work experience (SD ¼ 7.76). Their average tenure with their
organizations was 7.1 years (SD ¼ 7.05). Respondents included hourly
employees (37.7%), first-level managers (31.2%), middle managers
(23.2%), and senior managers (4.3%) (3.7% chose “not relevant”).
5.2. Measures
The survey items were developed in English and translated into
Chinese. The Chinese version was then back-translated into English
and the discrepancies resolved. Appendix A provides information
about the items.
5.2.1. Environmental transformational leadership
We obtained permission to adapt 15 items from the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5x-Short (Bass & Avolio,
1995) to measure employees’ perceptions of their immediate
managers’ environmental transformational leadership. The items
assessed the various aspects of transformational leadership (i.e.,
three items each for idealized influence e behaviors, idealized in-
fluence e attributes, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimu-
lation, and individualized consideration). Following the MLQ
instructions, employees indicated how often their managers dis-
played each behavior on a 5-point scale (0 ¼ not at all, 4 ¼ frequently
85
if not always). Consistent with existing research (Judge & Piccolo,
2004), a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (not reported here)
indicated that the items formed a single factor (a ¼ .95).
5.2.2. Autonomous and external motivation
We drew on the SDT literature (i.e., Fernet, Senécal, Guay, Marsh,
& Dowson, 2008; Gagné et al., 2010; Pelletier et al.,1998) to develop 9
items measuring employees’ motivation to engage in PEBs at work
(See Appendix A). All items were measured on 5-point scales
(1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree). Three items measured
external motivation. We dropped one of these items due to a low
item-total correlation (“my work requires it”). Coefficient alpha for
the two remaining items was .76. Six items (a ¼ .80) measured
autonomous motivation (three items each for the identified and
intrinsic motivation). A preliminary CFA (not reported here) indi-
cated that the six items represented a single factor, rather than two
separate factors.
5.2.3. Proenvironmental behavior
Given the absence of established measures of employee PEBs,
we developed 13 items (a ¼ .91) based on existing work on
individual-level environmental behavior (i.e., Boiral, 2009; Dailey
et al., 2009; Ones & Dilchert, 2010). Respondents indicated the
extent to which they engaged in the behaviors on 5-point scales
(0 ¼ not at all, 4 ¼ frequently if not always).
5.2.4. Control variables
In addition to company, we assessed several demographic var-
iables that might be related to leadership, motivation, or PEBs
including gender (1 ¼ male, 2 ¼ female), age, organizational tenure,
and years of work experience.
5.3. Analyses
We were interested in testing the relationships at the employee-
level. Since there were multiple employees from each of four or-
ganizations, it was possible that employees’ responses were not
statistically independent. Thus, we tested for nonindependence
due to company membership by calculating intraclass correlation
coefficients for each survey item (see Kenny & La Voie, 1985). The
results revealed some nonindependence; the intraclass coefficients
ranged from .01 to .32, and 17 of the 37 were significant. Conse-
quently, we accounted for the influence of company before per-
forming our analyses. Following Kenny and La Voie (1985), we
removed variation in the data due to company by mean-centering
each participant’s survey responses using the mean responses for
his/her company.
We conducted latent variable structural equation modeling
(SEM) using Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 1998e2007) to test our
model. The initial phase of the structural equation analysis tested a
confirmatory factor analytic or measurement model to verify that
the indicators reflected their intended latent variables. Using all of
the survey items as indicators would have resulted in an exceed-
ingly large number of parameters relative to the sample size. Thus,
we employed sums or parcels of several survey items as indicators
of some of the latent variables. Parcels are frequently used in SEM.
Their use was appropriate in the present study because our primary
focus was the links between latent variables rather than the attri-
butes of individual survey items (Landis, Beal, & Tesluk, 2000; Little,
Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002).
More specifically, we created parcels of survey items for the
environmental transformational leadership and PEB constructs,
both of which had large numbers of survey items. We used the
single-factor procedure (Landis et al., 2000) to create the parcels for
these constructs. In this procedure, we performed a factor analysis
86 L.M. Graves et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 81e91
on the survey items for the construct, specifying a single-factor
solution. The resulting factor loadings were used to determine
the parcels. Survey items were allocated to parcels in a manner
such that the average factor loadings of the items comprising each
parcel were comparable (see Landis et al., 2000). This procedure
allowed us to create three parcels each for environmental trans-
formational leadership and PEBs.
We did not form parcels for variables that had relatively few
survey items (i.e., autonomous motivation, external motivation).
For autonomous motivation, the six survey items served as in-
dicators. For external motivation, we used a somewhat different
approach. Our preliminary analysis indicated that there were only
two viable indicators of external motivation. Because having two
indicators of the construct compromised model identification
(Kenny, 1977), we used a corrected single-indicator to represent
external motivation (e.g., Rothbard & Edwards, 2003). This indica-
tor was the sum of the two viable survey items. We corrected for
measurement error by setting the loading of the indicator on the
latent construct (lambda) to the square root of the reliability of the
indicator, and fixing the error variance of the indicator (theta) to
the proportion of error variance in the indicator (1  a) multiplied
by the variance of the indicator. All indicators of the latent variables
were standardized prior to the analysis to facilitate interpretation
of the moderating effect of transformational leadership.
The second phase of the structural equation analysis tested the
relationships between the latent variables. We first tested a model
consisting of the linear relationships depicted in Fig. 1. We then
analyzed a nonlinear model that included the moderating effect of
environmental transformational leadership on the relationship
between external motivation and PEBs (i.e., the transformational
leadership x external motivation interaction effect for PEBs). We
used Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 1998e2007) to create a latent
variable representing the interaction of the latent environmental
transformational leadership and external motivation constructs.
We tested whether the addition of this latent interaction variable to
the model improved fit. The latent interaction variable approach
has been shown to be effective for testing moderating relationships
in structural equation models (e.g., Klein & Moosbrugger, 2000;
Mathieu, Rapp, Maynard, & Mangos, 2010).
Both the linear and nonlinear structural models included two
demographic control variables, gender and organizational tenure.
Gender and tenure were represented by observed measures. They
were purely exogenous and were allowed to influence all of the
latent constructs in the model. Age (.74) and work experience (.84)
were highly correlated with organizational tenure. Thus, we did not
include them in our structural models.
To assess fit, we relied on the chi-square statistic, standardized
root mean square residual (SRMR), and the comparative fit index
(CFI) (Bentler, 1990). Consistent with Mathieu and Taylor (2006), we
adopted the following cutoff ranges for CFI and SRMR to balance
Type I and Type II error: 1) models with CFI values of <.90 and
SRMR > .10, deficient; 2) models with CFI values of .90 and <.95
and SRMR > .08 and .10, acceptable; and 3) models with CFI  .95
and SRMR  .08, excellent. We used the change in chi-square values
to test the relative fit of the nested models. The Sobel test (Sobel,
1982) was used to assess the significance of the indirect relation-
ships between environmental transformational leadership and PEBs.
6. Results
6.1. CFA
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations
for the study variables. The fit of the measurement model was
excellent, despite a significant chi-square (c2 (60) ¼ 194.21,
Table 1
Intercorrelations, means, and standard deviations for study variables.
Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 M SD
1. Environmental e 2.33 .75
transformational
leadership
2. External motivation .26 e 3.05 .87
3. Autonomous motivation .34 .17 e 3.71 .58
4. PEBs .75 .18 .44 e 2.51 .70
5. Gender .04 .13 .02 .00 e 1.44 .50
6. Organizational tenure .20 .08 .10 .16 .12 e 7.14 7.05
Notes: N ¼ 294. Means and standard deviations are based on the averages of the
items comprising the scales and were calculated from the raw data (not corrected
for nonindependence). Correlations are based on data that was mean-centered
within company. Correlations with an absolute value of .12 or higher are signifi-
cant at p < .05. The scales for environmental transformational leadership and PEBs
ranged from 0 to 4. The scales for the motivation variables ranged from 1 to 5.
p < .001; CFI ¼ .95; SRMR ¼ .05). Inspection of the results indicated
that one indicator of autonomous motivation, “it allows me to
achieve goals I consider important,” was highly related to the
external motivation latent construct. It is possible that participants
considered personal financial goals, not just environmental goals,
when responding to this item. We removed this item from the
model, leading to an improvement in model fit (c2 (49) ¼ 134.81,
p < .001; CFI ¼ .97; SRMR ¼ .04). All of the standardized factor
loadings of the latent variables on their indicators were significant
(p < .001); they ranged from .54 to .96.
6.2. Structural model
We then tested the linear structural model, adding gender and
organizational tenure to the model. Although chi-square for the
model was significant, c2 (66) ¼ 155.30, p < .001, the remaining fit
statistics indicated that its fit was excellent (CFI ¼ .97, SRMR ¼ .04).
Fig. 2 depicts the standardized results for this model.
Consistent with Hypotheses 1 and 2, the immediate supervisor’s
environmental transformational leadership was positively related
to the employee’s autonomous (B ¼ .38, p < .001) and external
motivation (B ¼ .30, p < .001). Employees who saw their supervi-
sors as displaying environmental transformational leadership re-
ported higher levels of both autonomous motivation and external
motivation to engage in PEBs.
As suggested by Hypothesis 3, autonomous motivation was
positively related to employee PEBs (B ¼ .24, p < .01); employees
who experienced higher levels of autonomous motivation to engage
in PEBs also reported that they engaged in more PEBs. External
motivation, however, was unrelated to employee PEBs (B ¼ .00, n.s.).
The indirect effect of environmental transformational leader-
ship on PEBs through autonomous motivation was significant
(.38  .24 ¼ .09; Sobel ¼ 3.56; SE ¼ .04; p < .001). The results for the
linear model also revealed a large direct positive relationship be-
tween environmental transformational leadership and employee
PEBs (B ¼ .70, p < .001). This finding was consistent with
Hypothesis 5.
In addition, there were some effects for the control variables.
Employee gender was related to external motivation (B ¼ .15,
p < .05); women reported less external motivation than men. The
employee’s organizational tenure was negatively related to their
perceptions of the supervisor’s environmental leadership (B ¼ .21,
p < .05). Employees with longer tenure in the organization saw
their supervisors as engaging in less environmental trans-
formational leadership.
Overall, the controls and latent variables accounted for 14.7% of
the variance in autonomous motivation, 12.6% of the variance in
external motivation, and 65.8% of the variance in PEBs.
 L.M. Graves et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 81e91
.38***
Environmental
transformational
leadership
.30***
Notes: Coefficients in parentheses are for the nonlinear model, which was unstandardized. Other coefficients are standardized.
Results for the controls are reported in the text. Residuals for linear model are .96 for environmental transformational leadership,
.85 for autonomous motivation, .87 for external motivation, and .34 for PEBs.
6.3. Nonlinear model
We then introduced the latent environmental transformational
leadership by external motivation interaction to the model and
tested its significance. We found that adding the interaction to the
model resulted in a significant improvement in model fit (Dc2
(1) ¼ 17.66, p < .001). The relevant results are shown in parentheses
in Fig. 2; these estimates are unstandardized (standardized esti-
mates are not available with this estimation technique). The effect
of the environmental transformational leadership by external
motivation interaction on PEBs was significant (b ¼ .35, p < .01).
We plotted the interaction by using traditional formulas for
depicting relationships at low (i.e., one standard deviation below
mean) and high (i.e., one standard deviation above mean) values of
the moderated variables (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). The
resulting plot is shown in Fig. 3. As predicted by Hypothesis 4, the
link between external motivation and PEBs was positive when
leadership was high [PEB ¼ 1.57 þ (.35) (external motivation)] and
negative when it was low [PEB ¼ 1.57 þ (.35) (external
High
Employee
PEBs
Low
Low
External motivation
Fig. 3. Environmental transformational leadership by external motivation interaction
for PEBS.
87
PEBs
.24**
(.35)
Autonomous .00
motivation (.00)
.70***
(1.57)
External (.35**)
motivation
Fig. 2. Structural model.
motivation)]. When supervisors provided high transformational
leadership, external motivation was associated with increases in
PEBs. When transformational leadership was low, however,
external motivation was associated with declines in PEBs.
7. Discussion
Our primary contribution to the literature is our focus on the
interplay of environmental transformational leadership and
employee motivation in facilitating employees’ PEBs in Chinese
organizations. To date, there has been little research on the de-
terminants of employees’ PEBs, and no examination of the impact
of environmental transformational leadership on employees’
autonomous and external motivation to engage in PEBs. Moreover,
our work is unique in testing the role of leadership in moderating
the relationship between external motivation and PEBs; prior
research has not examined this moderating effect for PEBs or for
other behaviors.
Our results provide substantial support for our model. As pre-
dicted by Hypotheses 1 and 2, environmental transformational
leadership was positively related to employees’ autonomous
motivation and external motivation to perform PEBs. Consistent
High with Hypothesis 3, increases in autonomous motivation were
environmental associated with increases in PEBs. As suggested by Hypothesis 4,
transformational the relationship between employees’ external motivation and their
leadership
PEBs was moderated by environmental transformational leader-
ship. Specifically, when leadership was high, there was a positive
relationship between external motivation and employee PEBs.
When leadership was low, the relationship between external
Low motivation and employee PEBs was negative. Consistent with
environmental Hypothesis 5, environmental transformational leadership had a
transformational
substantial direct, positive relationship with PEBs.
leadership
7.1. Relationship between environmental transformational
leadership and motivation
High
Although we cannot establish causality, the positive relationship
between transformational leadership and autonomous motivation
suggests that environmentally-oriented transformational leader-
ship is critical to autonomous motivation. This finding is in line
88 L.M. Graves et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 81e91
with the SDT literature on the importance of leader behaviors for
employee motivation (Baard et al., 2004; Gagné & Deci, 2005), as
well as evidence linking general transformational leadership and
autonomous motivation (i.e., Bono & Judge, 2003). It is likely that
managers who were high in environmental transformational
leadership expressed strong environmental values, and articulated
their environmental vision and goals (Daily et al., 2009; Egri &
Herman, 2000). Employees may have accepted and internalized
these values and goals, resulting in increases in the degree to which
environmental activities were personally meaningful to employees
and leading to increases in autonomous motivation. Further, envi-
ronmental transformational leaders may have also engaged in
coaching and mentoring to develop employees’ capacity to address
environmental issues, thereby increasing employees’ feelings of
competence, and, ultimately enhancing their level of motivation to
engage in PEBs.
The positive relationship between environmental trans-
formational leadership and external motivation is noteworthy. It
appears that environmental transformational leaders did not limit
themselves to transformational behaviors, but also used external
rewards as a means for encouraging employees to accomplish
environmental activities and goals (Bass, 1998; Judge & Piccolo,
2004). Further, the mentoring, coaching, and stimulation pro-
vided by environmental transformational leaders may have
enhanced the extent that employees felt competent to address
environmental issues. These feelings of competence may have
increased employees’ motivation to pursue any rewards that were
offered by the organization or manager (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Given
the transformational leader’s probable status as a trusted, role
model, employees may also have been motivated by a desire to
obtain the leader’s approval.
7.2. Relationship between autonomous motivation and PEBs
As suggested by SDT, autonomous motivation was positively
related to performance of PEBs. This finding is consistent with ev-
idence on the beneficial effects of autonomous motivation on per-
formance of PEBs in communities (e.g., Pelletier, 2002; Pelletier
et al., 1998). The fact that autonomous motivation reflects in-
dividuals’ underlying values, goals, and interests may have led
employees to experience autonomously-motivated PEBs as self-
consistent and voluntary (Judge et al., 2005; Sheldon & Elliot,
1998, 1999). Hence, employees may have viewed PEBs as expres-
sions of their true selves, increasing their feelings of engagement,
and, consequently boosting their persistence in performing PEBs.
Engagement and persistence may be particularly important if PEBs
are cognitively complex, demanding creativity and problem solving
(Gagné & Deci, 2005).
7.3. Relationship between external motivation and PEBs e moderating
role of leadership
Our findings suggest that the link between employees’
external motivation and PEBs varies as a function of the level of
environmental transformational leadership provided by man-
agers. External motivation seems to be positively related to PEBs
when managers provide high levels of environmental trans-
formational leadership. When environmental transformational
leadership is low, however, external motivation is negatively
related to PEBs.
This moderating effect is consistent with literature suggesting
that leaders play a key role in determining the impact of external
rewards on employees’ experiences (Eisenberger et al., 1999; Gagné
& Deci, 2005). Further, it provides a potential explanation for the
failure of past research to demonstrate clear links between external
motivation, and either work performance or performance of PEBs
in the community (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2003; Green-Demers et al.,
1997; Millette & Gagné, 2008; Pelletier et al., 1998).
As noted earlier, one explanation for the moderating effect is
that environmental transformational leadership alters the nature
and impact of external motivation by influencing employees’ in-
terpretations of external rewards (Eisenberger et al., 1999; Gagné &
Deci, 2005). Environmental transformational leaders are likely to
ask employees to tackle important, challenging PEBs. Employees
may interpret the rewards that are provided for performing these
PEBs as signals of their own competence and task mastery. Thus,
employees who are motivated by external rewards may be seeking
information about competence and mastery, rather than simply
pursuing rewards or avoiding sanctions. Pursuing a sense of
competence and task mastery is likely to create feelings and be-
haviors (e.g., positive emotions, setting difficult goals, feedback-
seeking, and task persistence) that enhance performance of PEBs
(McGregor & Elliot, 2002; Pekrun et al., 2006).
In contrast, managers who are low in environmental trans-
formational leadership will not communicate the importance of
PEBs; nor will they ask employees to engage in PEBs that stretch
their capabilities. As a result, employees may view PEBs as unin-
teresting activities of little consequence (Eisenberger et al., 1999).
Obviously, receiving rewards for completion of such tasks will not
provide employees with feedback about their competence. Conse-
quently, employees who are externally motivated in the absence of
environmental transformational leadership may pursue external
rewards simply for the sake of the rewards; they will feel controlled
by the rewards. They will not persist with the performance of PEBs
over time. Nor will they set difficult goals or seek feedback to
improve their mastery of PEBs.
7.4. Relationship between environmental transformational
leadership and PEBs
We also found a substantial direct positive relationship between
environmental transformational leadership and employees’ PEBs.
Clearly, increases in autonomous and extrinsic motivation are not
the sole mechanisms by which environmental transformational
leadership influences PEBs. Consistent with transformational
leadership theory, managers who engaged in high levels of trans-
formational leadership may have established a strong environ-
mental vision, set high expectations, and helped employees meet
these expectations (Bass, 1985). Moreover, the individualized
consideration and intellectual stimulation provided by environ-
mental transformational leaders may have directly enhanced em-
ployees’ abilities to perform PEBs. Further, given their strong
commitment to sustainability, these leaders may have encouraged
PEBs by providing more resources (e.g., processes, equipment) to
employees.
7.5. Applicability of model in China
Earlier we noted that there is growing attention to environ-
mental sustainability issues in Chinese society and organizations,
and argued for the relevance of our theoretical model in China. Our
findings support the applicability of our model to China and suggest
that immediate managers’ environmental transformational lead-
ership, together with employees’ autonomous and external moti-
vation, are important predictors of employees’ PEBs in Chinese
organizations. This is consistent with recent work suggesting that
general transformational leadership is associated with positive
results in China (e.g., Walumbwa and Lawler, 2003; Wang et al.,
2005), as well as research demonstrating the applicability of SDT
in Asia (e.g., Chirkov et al., 2003).
 L.M. Graves et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 81e91
7.6. Implications for research and practice
Our findings imply that environmental transformational lead-
ership and employee motivation have important effects on em-
ployees’ PEBs and suggest several areas for future research. First,
additional research is needed to confirm our findings. Longitudinal
research would be especially useful in establishing causality, as
would data from multiple levels of the organization (e.g., organi-
zational environmental management system, manager, and
employee).
Moreover, the model might be expanded in several ways to
more fully explain PEBs. The conceptualization of PEBs might be
enhanced by distinguishing between simple, routine activities and
cognitively complex activities (Gagné & Deci, 2005), and perhaps
voluntary and required activities (Boiral, 2009). Leadership might
be expanded to include the other aspects of behavior (i.e., trans-
actional and laissez-faire leadership, see Egri & Hermann, 2000). It
would also be useful to assess employees’ interpretations of
external rewards for performing PEBs so that the role of these in-
terpretations in the moderating effect of transformational leader-
ship could be assessed. Cross-level models including company-
(e.g., size, industry, environmental strategy and policy, organiza-
tional values and commitment) and country-level variables (e.g.,
cultural values, economic development, and regulatory environ-
ment) could also be tested.
Continued exploration of the interplay of environmental leader-
ship and employee motivation to engage in PEBs would be desirable.
Building on ambiguous research evidence regarding the potential
effects of external motivation on PEBs, we focused on the interaction
of external motivation and leadership in determining PEBs. Future
research might consider whether autonomous motivation and
leadership interact to determine PEBs. Another issue that might be
explored is the long-term impact of environmental transformational
leadership on the nature of employee motivation to engage in PEBs.
SDT (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagné & Deci, 2005) suggests that
external motivation may be transformed into autonomous motiva-
tion over time, particularly in the presence of supportive leadership.
Thus, it would be useful to explore whether environmental trans-
formational leadership results in changes in the relative amount of
external and autonomous motivation over time.
Although it is premature to offer firm recommendations for
practice, our results suggest that the manager’s environmental
transformational leadership is critical to facilitating the pro-
environmental behaviors of employees, whether they are autono-
mously or externally motivated. Organizations that want to
encourage employees to engage in PEBs should ensure that man-
agers have the ability to provide transformational leadership on
environmental issues.
8. Limitations and conclusions
Our study has several limitations common to field research. The
cross-sectional design of our study made it difficult to establish
causality. We also relied on employees’ self-reports, increasing the
chance that the relationships between the constructs were
magnified by response bias. However, the moderating effect
revealed by our study could not have been a function of response
bias. The presence of this effect enhances the credibility of our
work. Further, scholarship on employees’ environmental behaviors
is in its early stages; our work may be valuable in facilitating
additional theory and research, despite concerns about the nature
of the data.
Interpretation of the results may also be limited by the fact that
our respondents worked in China; our results may have been
affected by China’s unique political, economic, business, and
89
cultural environment. Further, respondents came from a small set
of organizations that were amenable to participation in the study;
these organizations may not be representative of the broader
population of organizations. Additional research with other sam-
ples will help address these questions of generalizability.
In conclusion, we proposed that employees’ PEBs are important
to the success of corporate sustainability efforts. Seeking to
enhance understanding of PEBs, we examined how the immediate
supervisor’s environmental transformational leadership and the
employee’s motivation combine to predict PEBs. Our results suggest
that environmental transformational leadership is of critical
importance for encouraging PEBs. Such leadership appears to
facilitate the employee’s autonomous motivation, which, in turn, is
associated with increases in PEBs. Further, environmental trans-
formational leadership seems to be linked to increases in the em-
ployee’s external motivation and may moderate the relationship
between such motivation and PEBs. These unique and interesting
findings set the stage for advancing understanding of the linkages
between transformational leadership, employee motivation, and
PEBs. Overall, our work increases understanding of employees’
PEBs and suggests that further examination of the factors that
encourage PEBs would be fruitful.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by grants to the third author from the
National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars of China
(71025002), National Key Basic Research Program of China (973
Program, 2011CB013406), and Natural Science Foundation of China
(71033004).
Appendix A. Survey items.
Environmental transformational leadership (sample items)3
My manager:
1. Displays confidence about environmental issues (idealized in-
fluence e attributes).
2. Talks about the importance of protecting nature (idealized in-
fluence e behaviors).
3. Talks enthusiastically about what we need to do to protect
nature (inspirational motivation).
4. Gets me to look at environmental problems in new ways (in-
tellectual stimulation).
5. Provides teaching and coaching on environmental issues
(individualized consideration).
Autonomous motivation
I would engage in green behaviors at work because:
1. It allows me to achieve goals I consider important (identified
motivation).
2. It fits my own values (identified motivation).
3. It is personally important to me (identified motivation).
4. I enjoy it (intrinsic motivation).
5. Of the pleasure I get from doing it (intrinsic motivation).
6. It is fun (intrinsic motivation).
3
The environmental transformational leadership items were adapted from the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire with permission form Mindgarden. We are
unable to reproduce all the items here. For information, please contact Mindgarden
at www.mindgarden.com.
90 L.M. Graves et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 81e91
External motivation
I would engage in green behaviors at work because:
1. My job requires it. (dropped)
2. I will be rewarded for doing it.
3. I am paid to do it.
Proenvironmental behaviors
At work, I:
1. Try to learn more about the environment.
2. Find ways of working that are better for the environment.
3. Offer ideas for reducing our impact on the environment.
4. Share my knowledge about the environment with others.
5. Apply new ideas for reducing our impact on the environment.
6. Help create green processes and products.
7. Perform environmental tasks that are not required by my
company.
8. Question practices that are likely to hurt the environment.
9. Recycle and reuse materials.
10. Try to reduce my energy use.
11. Join in environmental activities that are not required by my job.
12. Encourage others to think about the environment.
13. Help others solve environmental problems.
References
Anderson, L., Shivarajan, S., & Blau, G. (2005). Enacting ecological sustainability in
the MNC: A test of an adapted value-belief-norm framework. Journal of Business
Ethics, 59, 295e305.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories,
research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421e449.
Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and
organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951e968.
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). The relation of intrinsic need satis-
faction to performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 34, 92e98.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational
impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood City,
CA: Mindgarden.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B., & Atwater, L. (1996). The transformational and transactional
leadership of men and women. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
45(1), 5e34.
Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological
Bulletin, 107, 238e246.
Boiral, O. (2009). Greening the corporation through organizational citizenship be-
haviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 221e236.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Towards understanding
the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management
Journal, 46, 554e571.
Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from
individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on
internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 84, 97e110.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/
correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Daily, B. F., Bishop, J. W., & Govindarajulu, N. (2009). A conceptual model for
organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the environment. Business
and Society, 48, 243e256.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological
Bulletin, 125, 627e668.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human
needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11,
227e268.
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, 735e744.
Egri, C. P., & Herman, S. (2000). Leadership in the North American environmental
sector: Values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and
their organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 571e604.
Eisenberger, R., Pierce, W. D., & Cameron, J. (1999). Effects of reward on intrinsic
motivation e negative, neutral, and positive: Comment on Deci, Koestner, and
Ryan (1999). Psychological Bulletin, 125, 677e691.
Fernández, E., Junquera, B., & Ordiz, M. (2006). Managers’ profile in environmental
strategy: A review of the literature. Corporate Social Responsibility and Envi-
ronmental Management, 13, 261e274.
Fernet, C., Senécal, C., Guay, F., Marsh, H., & Dowson, M. (2008). The work tasks
motivation scale for teachers (WTMST). Journal of Career Assessment, 16,
256e279.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331e362.
Gagné, M., Forest, J., Gilbert, M., Aubé, C., Morin, E., & Malorni, A. (2010). The
motivation at work scale: Validation evidence in two languages. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 70, 628e646.
Green-Demers, I., Pelletier, L. G., & Ménard, S. (1997). The impact of behavioral
difficulty on the saliency of the association between self-determined motiva-
tion and environmental behaviors. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 29,
157e166.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job
and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 90, 257e268.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A
meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
755e768.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investi-
gation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on trans-
formational and transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21,
949e964.
Kenny, D. A. (1977). Correlation and causality. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. (1985). Separating individual and group effects. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 339e348.
Klein, A., & Moosbrugger, H. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent
interaction effects with the LMS Method. Psychometrika, 65, 457e474.
Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to forming
composite measures in structural equation models. Organizational Research
Methods, 3, 186e207.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not
to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation
Modeling, 9, 151e173.
Mathieu, J. E., Rapp, T. L., Maynard, M. T., & Mangos, M. M. (2010). Interactive effects
of team and task shared mental models as related to air traffic controllers’
collective efficacy and effectiveness. Human Performance, 23, 22e40.
Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2006). Clarifying conditions and decision points for
mediational type inferences in Organizational Behavior. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 27, 1031e1056.
McGregor, H. A., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Achievement goals as predictors of
achievement-relevant processes prior to task engagement. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 94, 381e395.
Millette, V., & Gagné, M. (2008). Designing volunteers’ tasks to maximize motiva-
tion, satisfaction and performance: The impact of job characteristics on
volunteer engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 11e22.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998e2007). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.). Los
Angeles: Muthén and Muthén.
Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (April 2010). Green behaviors among employees. In Paper
presented at the society for industrial and organizational psychology, Atlanta, GA.
Osbaldiston, R., & Sheldon, K. M. (2003). Promoting internalized motivation for
environmentally responsible behavior: A prospective study of environmental
goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 349e357.
Otis, N., & Pelletier, L. G. (2005). A motivational model of daily hassles, physical
symptoms, and future work intentions among police officers. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 35, 2193e2214.
Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2006). Achievement goals and discrete
achievement emotions: A theoretical model and prospective test. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 98, 583e597.
Pelletier, L. G. (2002). A motivational analysis of self-determination for pro-
environmental behaviors. In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-
determination research (pp. 205e232). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.
Pelletier, L. G., Tuson, K. M., Green-Demers, I., Noels, K., & Beaton, A. M. (1998). Why
are you doing things for the environment? The motivation toward the envi-
ronment scale (MTES). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 437e468.
Ramus, C. A. (2002). Encouraging innovative environmental actions: What com-
panies and managers must do. Journal of World Business, 37, 151e164.
Ramus, C. A., & Killmer, A. B. C. (2007). Corporate greening through prosocial
extrarole behaviours e A conceptual framework for employee motivation.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 16, 554e570.
Ramus, C. A., & Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviors and
environmental policy in employee “eco-initiatives” at leading-edge European
companies. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 605e626.
Reusswig, F., & Isensee, A. (2009). Rising capitalism, emerging middle classes and
environmental perspectives in China: A Weberian approach. In H. Lange, &
L. Meier (Eds.), The new middle classes. Globalizing lifestyles, consumerism and
environmental concern (pp. 119e142). Heidelberg: Springer.
 L.M. Graves et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 81e91
Robertson, J. L., & Barling, J. (2013). Greening organizations through leaders’ influ-
ence on employees’ proenvironmental behaviors. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 34, 176e194.
Rothbard, N. P., & Edwards, J. R. (2003). Investment in work and family roles: A test
of identity and utilitarian motives. Personnel Psychology, 56, 699e730.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
55, 68e78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potential: A review of
research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology,
52, 141e166.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An
organismic-dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of
self-determination research (pp. 3e33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charis-
matic leadership: A self-concept theory. Organizational Science, 4, 577e594.
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, 387e409.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing
autonomous and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort and
attainment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 546e557.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal
well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 76, 482e497.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural
equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290e
312). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
Stalley, P., & Yang, D. (2006). An emerging environmental movement in China?
China Quarterly, 186, 333e356.
91
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., & De Witte, H. (2008). Self-determination
theory: A theoretical and empirical overview in occupational health psychol-
ogy. In J. Houdmont, & S. Leka (Eds.), Occupational health psychology: European
perspectives on research, education, and practice (pp. 63e88). Nottingham:
Nottingham University.
Vansteenkiste, M., Zhou, M., Lens, W., & Soenens, B. (2005). Experiences of auton-
omy and control among Chinese learners: Vitalizing or immobilizing? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 97, 468e483.
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, 793e825.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Lawler, J. J. (2003). Building effective organizations: Trans-
formational leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes and
withdrawal behaviors in three emerging economies. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 14, 1083e1101.
Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Lawler, J. L., & Shi, K. (2004). The role of collective ef-
ficacy in the relations between transformational leadership and work out-
comes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 515e530.
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-member
exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leader-
ship and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior.
Academy of Management Journal, 48, 420e432.
Wang, P., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2007). Family-friendly programs, organizational
commitment, and work withdrawal: The moderating role of transformational
leadership. Personnel Psychology, 60, 397e427.
Zeng, K., & Eastin, J. (2007). International economic integration and environmental
protection: The case of China. International Studies Quarterly, 51, 971e995.
Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., Sarkis, J., & Lai, M. (2011). Evaluating green supply chain man-
agement among Chinese manufacturers from the ecological modernization
perspective. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review,
47, 808e821.