Which Factors Are Associated With Transformational Leadership? Select All That Apply.

This study identified aspects of transformational leadership theory that have resulted in a lack of empirical support for the hypothesized factor structure of the model, and very strong relationships among the leadership components. We proposed five more focused subdimensions of transformational leadership including vision, inspirational communication, intellectual stimulation, supportive leadership, and personal recognition. Confirmatory factor analyses provided support for the hypothesized factor structure of the measures selected to assess these subdimensions, and also provided support for the discriminant validity of the subdimensions with each other. After controlling for the effects of common method variance, a number of the subdimensions of transformational leadership demonstrated significant unique relationships with a range of outcomes. Results provided initial support for the five subdimensions of transformational leadership that were identified.

Figures - uploaded by Alannah Eileen Rafferty

Author content

All figure content in this area was uploaded by Alannah Eileen Rafferty

Content may be subject to copyright.

Discover the world's research

20+ million members
135+ million publications
700k+ research projects

Join for free

Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and

empirical extensions

Alannah E. Rafferty * , Mark A. Griffin

School of Management, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, 4001 QLD, Australia

Abstract

This study identified aspects of transformational leadership theory that have resulted in a lack of empirical

support for the hypothesized factor structure of the model, and very strong relationships among the leadership

components. We proposed five more focused subdimensions of transformational leadership including vision,

inspirational communication, intellectual stimulation, supportive leadership, and personal recognition. Confirma-

tory factor analyses provided support for the hypothesized factor structure of the measures selected to assess these

subdimensions, and also provided support for the discriminant validity of the subdimensions with each other. After

controlling for the effects of common method variance, a number of the subdimensions of transformational

leadership demonstrated significant unique relationships with a range of outcomes. Results provided initial support

for the five subdimensions of transformational leadership that were identified.

Keywords: Transformational leadership; Nomological network; Subdimensions of transformational leadership; Common

method variance

1. Introduction

Bass' (1985) model of transformational leadership has been embraced by scholars and practitioners

alike as one way in which organizations can encourage employees to perform beyond expectations.

Despite the degree of interest in transformational leadership, a number of theoretical issues have been

identified with this model. Most importantly, there is ambiguity concerning the differentiation of the

subdimensions of transformational leadership (Bryman, 1992; Yukl, 1999a). Empirically, this issue has

been reflected in a lack of support for the hypothesized factor structure of the transformational model and

for the discriminant validity of the components of the model with each other (e.g., Avolio, Bass, & Jung,

1999; Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; Carless, 1998).

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.02.009

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-7-3864-1758.

E-mail address: a.rafferty@qut.edu.au (A.E. Rafferty).

The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329 – 354

As a result of mixed empirical support for the transformational model, authors such as Carless (1998)

and Tepper and Percy (1994) have argued that the higher-order factors of transformational leadership and

transactional leadership should be examined rather than the individual components of the model. To

address these issues, we identify a set of more focused and theoretically distinct subdimensions of

transformational leadership. The empirical properties of measures selected to assess these subdimensions

are examined, and a nomological network, relating the leadership factors with theoretically selected

outcomes, is developed and tested.

1.1. Transformational leadership theory

Burns (1978) was the first author to contrast ''transforming'' and transactional leadership. Transac-

tional leadership involves an exchange relationship between leaders and followers such that followers

receive wages or prestige for complying with a leader's wishes. Transactional leadership encompasses

contingent reward and management-by-exception.

In contrast, transformational leaders motivate followers to achieve performance beyond expectations

by transforming followers' attitudes, beliefs, and values as opposed to simply gaining compliance (Bass,

1985; Yukl, 1999a, 1999b). Bass identified a number of subdimensions of transformational leadership

including charisma (which was later renamed idealized influence), inspirational motivation, intellectual

stimulation, and individualized consideration.

Despite the popularity of transformational leadership theory, concerns have been raised about the

way in which the subdimensions of the model have been defined. In particular, theoretical

distinctions between charisma and inspirational motivation have become blurred over time (Barbuto,

1997). The diversity of behaviors encompassed by individualized consideration and contingent

reward has also been identified as problematic (Yukl, 1999a, 1999b). An even more critical problem

has been identified with contingent reward. Authors have argued that ways of operationalizing this

construct assess both transactional and transformational processes (Goodwin, Wofford, & Whitting-

ton, 2001).

The above issues have meant that empirical research has provided mixed support for the differen-

tiation of the components of the transformational model. Below, we review empirical evidence

concerning the factor structure of the most commonly used measure of transformational leadership,

the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ).

1.2. Empirical support for the transformational leadership model

Research has not provided convincing evidence in support of the transformational leadership model

(Bycio et al., 1995; Tepper & Percy, 1994). Conflicting evidence has been reported concerning the factor

structure of the model, and very strong relationships have been reported among the leadership factors

(Avolio et al., 1999; Carless, 1998; Tejeda, Scandura, & Pillai, 2001).

Using the MLQ-1, Bycio et al. (1995) found that a five-factor model including charisma, intellectual

stimulation, individualized consideration, contingent reward, and management-by-exception, was a good

fit to the data. However, a two-factor model representing an active and passive leadership factor was also

a good fit to the data. Latent factor correlations revealed that the transformational leadership scales were

highly intercorrelated (r s ranged from .83 to .91), and the contingent reward scale was strongly

associated with the transformational scales (r s ranged from .79 to .83). The average latent factor

A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354 330

intercorrelation among the transformational scales was .88, while the average latent factor intercorre-

lation between the transformational scales and contingent reward was .81.

Avolio et al. (1999) proposed several alternate conceptual models of the factor structure underlying

the MLQ-5X. The originally hypothesized model did not produce an adequate fit to the data because of

the high latent factor intercorrelations among the transformational leadership factors, and the high latent

correlations among the transformational factors and contingent reward. Ultimately, a six-factor model

using a reduced set of items produced the best fit to the data when compared to a series of nested models.

However, the average latent factor intercorrelation among the transformational scales was .94 (r s ranged

from .91 to .95), and the average correlation among the transformational scales and contingent reward

was .90 (r s ranged from .86 to .93).

Carless (1998) examined the MLQ-5X, and reported that a hierarchical model with charisma,

individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation representing facets of a second-order construct

called transformational leadership was a good fit to the data. The subscales of the MLQ were highly

correlated, and a high proportion of the variance of these scales was explained by the higher-order

construct. Carless suggested that the MLQ-5X does not assess separate transformational leadership

behaviors, but measures a single, hierarchical construct of transformational leadership.

The above findings have led researchers to use a number of tactics when examining transformational

leadership. Some authors have opted to use a global measure of transformational and transactional

leadership as opposed to examining the individual subdimensions (e.g., Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams,

1999). Other researchers have used a reduced set of items to measure transformational leadership (e.g.,

Tejeda et al., 2001). This latter strategy has been largely driven by empirical results and has not been

accompanied by a strong theoretical rationale to explain the allocation of items to factors.

Other authors, such as Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) , have developed their

own measures of transformational and transactional leadership. While these three approaches may all

prove useful in some situations, we argue that it is important to adopt a theoretically driven approach

when evaluating the subdimensions of transformational leadership. As a result, we re-examine the

theoretical model developed by Bass (1985) to identify five subdimensions of transformational

leadership that will demonstrate discriminant validity with each other and with outcomes.

1.3. Vision

We identify vision as an important leadership dimension encompassed by the more general construct

of charisma. Bass (1985) argued that the most general and important component of transformational

leadership is charisma. Empirical findings support this statement, with meta-analytic results indicating

that charisma is most strongly associated with measures of effectiveness such as satisfaction with the

leader (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996).

Authors have been critical of the way in which charisma has been defined (Barbuto, 1997; Beyer,

1999). Beyer argued that the essential components of charisma have been dramatically downplayed or

ignored. Weber (1968) stated that charisma involves five components including an extraordinarily gifted

person; a social crisis; a set of ideas providing a radical solution to a problem; a set of followers who are

attracted to the exceptional person and believe that the leader is linked to transcendent powers; and the

validation of the leader's extraordinary gifts through repeated success.

Charisma, as discussed in the transformational model, does not incorporate all of these components.

The contribution of the situation surrounding leaders and followers, the personal qualities linked with

A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354 331

charisma, and the association that followers make between a charismatic leader and transcendent powers

are not explored.

A common theme when discussing charisma is the importance of articulating a vision. Weber (1968)

identified vision as one of the five elements that contribute to charisma, and House (1977) stated that

charismatic leaders demonstrate a number of behaviors including articulating an ideology that enhances

goal clarity, task focus, and value congruence.

The current study focuses on vision as opposed to the broader construct of charisma or idealized

influence proposed by Bass and his colleagues. House (1977) defined vision as a transcendent ideal that

represents shared values, and which is ideological in nature. McClelland (1975) suggested that vision

results in the internalization of organizational values and goals, which encourages individuals to adopt

behaviors because of the attractiveness of the behavior itself as opposed to the attractiveness of a given

leader. In this study, we define vision as:

The expression of an idealized picture of the future based around organizational values.

1.4. Inspirational communication

Although inspirational motivation has been identified as an important component of transformational

leadership, this construct has been variously defined (Barbuto, 1997) . Bass (1985) stated that charismatic

leaders use inspirational appeals and emotional talks to arouse follower motivations to transcend self-

interest for the good of the team.

At a later date, Bass (1999) stated that both charisma and inspirational motivation are displayed when a

leader envisions a desirable future, articulates how it can be reached, sets an example to be followed, sets

high standards of performance, and shows determination and confidence. This description suggests vision

and inspirational motivation might be combined into a single construct. However, other researchers have

argued that it is useful to maintain a distinction between vision and inspirational motivation (e.g., Barbuto,

1997; McClelland, 1975). Below, we present a theoretical rationale for making a distinction between the

constructs of inspirational leadership and the vision component of charisma.

Downton (1973) defined inspiration as the action or power of moving the intellect or emotions. In

contrast, Bass (1985) restricted the use of the term inspirational leadership to instances when a leader

employs or adds nonintellectual, emotional qualities to the influence process. He stated that inspirational

leaders add affective qualities to the influence process through the use of inspirational talks and

emotional appeals. Similarly, Yukl (1981, p. 121) suggested that inspiration refers to ''the extent to

which a leader stimulates enthusiasm among subordinates for the work of the group and says things to

build subordinate confidence in their ability to perform assignments successfully and attain group

objectives.''

A recurring element within existing definitions of inspirational leadership is the use of oral

communication to motivate and arouse followers' emotions. As a result, we focus on inspirational

communication, or the use of appeals and emotion-laden statements to arouse followers' emotions and

motivation, as opposed to the broader construct of inspirational motivation proposed by Bass and his

colleagues. In this study, we suggest that inspirational communication is a distinct construct, defined as:

The expression of positive and encouraging messages about the organization, and statements that

build motivation and confidence.

A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354 332

1.5. Supportive leadership

One factor that distinguishes transformational leadership from other New Leadership theories is the

inclusion of individualized consideration. Bass (1985) initially stated that individualized consideration

occurs when a leader has a developmental orientation towards staff and displays individualized attention

to followers and responds appropriately to their personal needs.

More recently, discussions of individualized consideration have focused on one component of this

construct, supportive leadership. For example, Avolio and Bass (1995, p. 202) stated ''the leader

displays more frequent individualized consideration by showing general support for the efforts of

followers.'' Other authors in the transformational leadership field have also focused on supportive

leadership as opposed to the broader construct of individualized attention. Podsakoff et al. (1990)

examined individualized support, which was defined as behavior on the part of a leader that indicates

that he or she respects his or her followers and is concerned with followers' feelings and needs.

We focus on supportive leadership here, and use the extensive research that has been conducted on

this topic to guide our discussion. Supportive leadership is a key aspect of effective leadership in path –

goal theory (House, 1971) . House (1996, p. 327) defined supportive leader behavior as ''behavior

directed toward the satisfaction of subordinates' needs and preferences, such as displaying concern for

subordinates' welfare and creating a friendly and psychologically supportive work environment.'' We

define supportive leadership as:

Expressing concern for followers and taking account of their individual needs.

1.6. Intellectual stimulation

The most underdeveloped component of transformational leadership is intellectual stimulation (Lowe

et al., 1996). This leadership factor encompasses behaviors that increase followers' interest in and

awareness of problems, and that develop their ability and propensity to think about problems in new

ways (Bass, 1985) . The effects of intellectual stimulation are seen in increases in followers' abilities to

conceptualize, comprehend, and analyze problems and in the improved quality of solutions that they

generate (Bass & Avolio, 1990).

While this leadership factor has not been the subject of extensive research, this construct encompasses a

more focused, and internally consistent set of behaviors than the other subdimensions of transformational

leadership. As a result, the definition of intellectual stimulation adopted by Bass and his colleagues is

retained in this study. Based on the work of Bass (1985) , we define intellectual stimulation as:

Enhancing employees' interest in, and awareness of problems, and increasing their ability to think

about problems in new ways.

1.7. Personal recognition

Our fifth dimension is based on the body of research that has found a strong link between

transactional leadership and the subdimensions of transformational leadership. Transactional leadership

encompasses contingent reward and management-by-exception. Contingent reward involves rewarding

followers for attaining specified performance levels. Bass (1985) suggested that praise for work well

A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354 333

done, recommendations for pay increases and promotions, and commendations for excellent effort are all

examples of contingent reward behaviors.

Empirical evidence indicates that contingent reward is highly positively correlated with transforma-

tional leadership, and displays a similar pattern of relationships to outcomes as the transformational

subdimensions (e.g., Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997; Tepper & Percy, 1994). A number of

reasons have been proposed to explain these strong relationships.

Goodwin et al. (2001) hypothesized that the contingent reward scale, as assessed by the MLQ-5X,

captures behaviors associated with the negotiation of rewards for good performance and behaviors

associated with the provision of rewards based on performance. These authors argued that the

negotiation of rewards for good performance represents a form of transactional leadership. However,

rewarding followers based on their performance was argued to represent a transformational process as

followers and leaders in a transformational relationship have a personal investment in the vision. As a

result, followers assume that performance consistent with the vision will be rewarded.

Goodwin et al. (2001) found support for a two-factor solution for contingent reward using

confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). These authors interpreted their findings as providing support for

the argument that contingent reward encompasses both transactional and transformational processes.

This interpretation is consistent with models of high-performance work systems (e.g., Arthur, 1994;

Becker & Gerhart, 1996; Vandenberg, Richardson, & Eastman, 1999), which distinguish between reward

as a control mechanism and reward as a component of a system designed to increase employee

commitment.

In the current study, we use the term ''personal recognition'' to capture that aspect of contingent

reward that is conceptually related to transformational leadership. Personal recognition occurs when a

leader indicates that he or she values individuals' efforts and rewards the achievement of outcomes

consistent with the vision through praise and acknowledgment of followers' efforts. We define personal

recognition as:

The provision of rewards such as praise and acknowledgement of effort for achievement of specified

goals.

In summary, the above review identified a set of more focused subdimensions of transformational

leadership including articulating a vision, inspirational communication, supportive leadership, intellec-

tual stimulation, and personal recognition. An important aim of the current study is to determine whether

individuals differentiate between these subdimensions when describing their leader's behavior. In

addition, we examine whether the subdimensions demonstrate discriminant validity with each other.

Below, a nomological network, relating the leadership subdimensions identified in this study with a

range of theoretically selected outcomes, is developed.

1.8. The nomological network

When studying the effects of transformational leadership, researchers have focused on outcomes such

as such as satisfaction, follower extra effort, and ratings of leader effectiveness (e.g., Lowe et al., 1996).

However, theorists have also proposed that transformational leaders have a powerful influence on a

range of other outcomes including motivation and attachment to the organization (e.g., Bass, 1985;

Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993).

A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354 334

We develop a series of hypotheses suggesting that certain subdimensions of transformational leadership

are uniquely associated with a number of outcomes including affective and continuance commitment, role

breadth self-efficacy (RBSE), interpersonal helping behaviors, and intentions to turnover.

1.8.1. Affective commitment

Affective commitment refers to the extent to which followers identify with, are involved in, and are

emotionally attached to an organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997) . Researchers have found that all of the

subdimensions of transformational leadership and contingent reward are strongly positively associated

with affective commitment (Bycio et al., 1995) . We propose, however, that only vision and inspirational

communication will be uniquely positively associated with affective commitment. The reasoning behind

this hypothesis is presented below.

H1. Vision and inspirational communication have a unique positive relationship with affective

commitment to the organization.

Empirical research suggests that vision has a positive impact on affective commitment. Podsakoff,

MacKenzie, and Bommer (1996) examined the influence of six subdimensions of transformational

leadership and a range of substitutes for leadership (Kerr & Jermier, 1978) on affective commitment to

the organization. Results indicated that only one of the leadership factors, articulating a vision, was

significantly positively associated with affective commitment.

Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) conducted an experimental study with students who engaged in a

simulated assembly task. These authors reported that vision positively affected congruence between the

participants' beliefs and the leader's beliefs and values, trust in the leader, the extent to which the leader

intellectually stimulated participants, and the extent to which individuals saw the leader as charismatic.

In addition, participants in the vision condition reported that the experimental task was more

''interesting,'' ''challenging,'' and ''important,'' while individuals in the no-vision condition reported

that the task was ''unstimulating,'' ''boring,'' and ''not worthwhile.'' In summary, evidence suggests that

articulation of a vision will increase the extent to which individuals identify with, and feel attached to an

organization.

Very few researchers have examined inspirational leadership separate from charisma. As a result, there

is little empirical evidence regarding the influence of inspirational leadership on employees' attitudes and

behaviors. We suggest, however, that inspirational communication will display a unique positive

relationship with affective commitment. In particular, we propose that expressing positive and encour-

aging messages will increase the attractiveness of the organization to individuals, which will positively

impact on the extent to which individuals identify with, and feel attached to the organization as a whole.

1.8.2. Continuance commitment

Continuance commitment refers to an employee's awareness that there are costs associated with

leaving an organization. Employees who report strong continuance commitment stay with an organi-

zation because they feel that have to (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1997) . Bycio et al. (1995)

examined relationships among the subdimensions of transformational and transactional leadership and

continuance commitment. These authors hypothesized that contingent reward would be significantly

positively associated with continuance commitment. Contrary to expectations, however, the only

leadership factor that was associated with continuance commitment was management-by-exception.

A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354 335

Bycio et al. (1995) explained this result by focusing on the composition of the continuance

commitment scale, which contains items measuring individuals' perceptions of their investments in

the organization and the availability of alternative employment possibilities. Bycio et al. argued that

contingent reward should increase investments in an organization but would not influence individuals'

perceptions of their employment opportunities.

We use the above reasoning to propose that when leaders reward followers by recognizing their

efforts, then followers' sense of investment in an organization will increase. As a result it is proposed

that:

H2. Personal recognition has a unique positive relationship with continuance commitment.

1.8.3. Role breadth self-efficacy

Shamir et al. (1993) argued that transformational leaders increase followers' self-efficacy, which

refers to individuals' beliefs in their capabilities to organize and execute actions required to produce

given attainments (Bandura, 1997) . Self-efficacy is an important motivational construct that influences

individuals' choices, goals, emotional reactions, and their effort, coping, and persistence (Bandura,

1997; Gist & Mitchell, 1992).

This study focuses on one particular type of self-efficacy, RBSE, which refers to the extent to

which people feel confident that they are capable of carrying out a range of proactive integrative

tasks beyond prescribed technical requirements (Parker, 1998, 2000) . Examples of proactive tasks

include solving long-term problems, designing improved procedures, setting goals, and resolving

conflicts.

Despite theoretical interest in the influence of transformational leaders on self-efficacy, only a limited

number of studies have examined this relationship (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002; Jung & Sosik,

2002). Jung and Sosik explored whether transformational leadership was related to followers'

perceptions of empowerment, group cohesiveness, and effectiveness in 47 groups from four Korean

firms. These authors suggested that empowerment involves enabling group members through enhancing

their self-efficacy beliefs and their intrinsic task motivation.

Jung and Sosik (2002) found that a higher-order transformational leadership factor was positively

related to empowerment, group cohesiveness, and perceived group effectiveness. In addition, empow-

erment was positively related to collective self-efficacy, which was positively associated with perceived

group effectiveness. This research provides preliminary evidence to indicate that transformational

leaders do influence followers' self-efficacy beliefs.

Bandura (1986, 1997) stated that self-efficacy beliefs are constructed from four major sources of

information including enactive mastery experiences that serve as indicators of capability; vicarious

experiences that alter efficacy beliefs through transmission of competencies and comparison with the

attainments of others; verbal persuasion; and physiological and affective states from which people judge

their capabilities, strength, and vulnerability to dysfunction.

We argue that inspirational communication is a form of verbal persuasion that will increase RBSE.

When leaders communicate positive and encouraging messages, then it is likely that people will feel

more capable of carrying out a range of proactive integrative tasks beyond prescribed technical

requirements. Specifically, it is proposed that:

H3. Inspirational communication has a unique positive relationship with RBSE.

A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354 336

1.8.4. Interpersonal helping behavior

Podsakoff et al. (1990) stated that the real essence of transformational leadership is that these

leaders cause followers to do more than they originally expected to do. As a result, the most

important effect of transformational leadership is on extra-role performance or organizational

citizenship behaviors (OCBs) rather than on in-role performance. OCB refers to ''individual

behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system,

and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization'' (Organ, 1988,

p. 4).

We focus on interpersonal helping behaviors, which occur when people voluntarily help others with,

or prevent the occurrence of work-related problems (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000).

Empirical research indicates that a number of subdimensions of transformational leadership and

contingent reward are positively associated with helping behaviors.

Podsakoff et al. (2000), in a meta-analytic review of studies examining the antecedents of OCBs,

found that leadership support, vision, intellectual stimulation, and contingent reward were strongly

positively associated with two types of helping behavior, altruism and courtesy. Individualized support

displayed the strongest relationship with altruism and courtesy.

Podsakoff et al. (1996) examined whether the subdimensions of transformational leadership

or a number of substitutes for leadership were significantly associated with OCBs. The only

leadership factor that was significantly positively associated with altruism was individualized

support, although five substitutes for leadership displayed significant relationships with

altruism.

Organ and Ryan (1995) conducted a meta-analysis of studies examining the antecedents of

OCBs. One type of leadership behavior, leader consideration, was examined. Results suggested that

of all the antecedents examined, leadership consideration displayed the strongest positive relation-

ship with altruism, even after studies that used self-report measures of OCBs were excluded from

the analysis.

In summary, research has provided evidence to suggest that supportive leadership will be strongly

positively associated with interpersonal helping behaviors after taking account of the effects of the other

leadership subdimensions. As a result of these findings it is proposed that:

H4. Supportive leadership has a unique positive relationship with interpersonal helping behaviors.

1.8.5. Turnover intentions

Researchers have concentrated on the influence of affective variables such as commitment and

satisfaction on turnover intentions (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Williams & Hazer, 1986) . However,

Bycio et al. (1995) reported that all of the transformational leadership behaviors and contingent

reward were significantly negatively associated with intentions to leave the job. Charisma

displayed the strongest relationship with intention to leave the job and intention to leave the

profession.

One difficulty with interpreting the findings of Bycio et al.'s (1995) study is that measures of

charisma have incorporated items assessing both vision and inspirational leadership. As a result,

it is difficult to determine whether both of these leadership factors influence turnover intentions,

or whether one of these leadership factors is responsible for relationships with turnover

intentions.

A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354 337

Some empirical evidence does suggest that vision has a strong influence on turnover

intentions. In particular, authors have examined the effects of goal congruence between leaders

and followers (e.g., Vancouver, Millsap, & Peters, 1994; Vancouver & Schmitt, 1991). Vancouver

and Schmitt proposed that agreement among organizational members in schools regarding the

goals of the school was related to the attitudes of its members. These authors focused on

nonoperational goals, which do not define measurable outcomes, and as such reflect a leader's

vision.

Vancouver and Schmitt (1991) found that both between-constituency and within-constituency

goal congruence were significantly associated with intentions to turnover. That is, when

individuals in different hierarchical positions agreed on nonoperational goals, and when there

was agreement between an individual and all the other individuals in a group on nonoperational

goals, intentions to turnover decreased. These results suggest that articulation of a vision has a

powerful influence on turnover intentions. On the basis of the above findings, it is proposed

that:

H5. Articulating a vision has a unique negative relationship with turnover intentions.

2. Method

2.1. Procedure and participants

Three thousand three hundred and seven surveys were distributed across an Australian public sector

organization, and 1398 employees responded (response rate 42.2%). This agency is responsible for

developing and implementing the policies and programs related to government buildings, capital works

initiatives, procurement development, and administrative services.

Sixty-nine percent of respondents were male and 28% were female. Approximately 17% of the

sample reported that their age was 41–45 years, while the second largest group of respondents

reported being 46–50 years of age. Approximately 20% of the sample (19.7%) had worked for

their organization for 3–5 years, while the next largest group of respondents (15.7%) had worked

for their organization for 1–2 years. Comparison of the demographic profile of survey respondents

to that of the organization as a whole revealed that respondents were similar to the population of

employees.

Throughout the analyses we assessed the influence of common method variance (CMV) using an

approach adopted by Williams and Anderson (1994) and discussed by Richardson, Simmering, and

Roman (2003). Williams and Anderson used a marker variable approach to adjust relationships for CMV

among latent variables in a structural equation model. We used a three-item measure of bureaucracy as

the marker variable in our analysis.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Leadership

Leadership items were adapted from measures produced by House (1998) and Podsakoff et al. (1990).

Items were chosen on the basis of how well they assessed the theoretical construct under study. The

A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354 338

leadership items are displayed in Table 1 . A 5-point Likert scale where 1 represented strongly disagree

and 5 represented strongly agree was used for all the leadership items.

Employees were asked to respond to the leadership items keeping in mind the leader or manager of

their work unit, which was defined as that group of people that individuals interact with on a day-to-day

basis.

2.2.2. Articulating a vision

Three items developed by House (1998) were adapted to assess this construct. One item was reverse-

scored. An example item was ''has a clear understanding of where he/she wants our unit to be in 5

years.'' This scale had a Cronbach's alpha of .82.

2.2.3. Intellectual stimulation

Three items developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990) were adapted to assess this construct. An example

of an item used to assess this construct was ''challenges me to think about old problems in new ways.''

This scale had a Cronbach's alpha of .84.

2.2.4. Inspirational communication

Three items developed by House (1998) were adapted to assess inspirational communication. An

example of an item was ''says things that make employees proud to be part of this organization.'' This

scale had a Cronbach's alpha of .88.

2.2.5. Supportive leadership

Three items developed by House (1998) were adapted to assess supportive leadership. An example of

an item used in the current study was ''sees that the interests of employees are given due consideration.''

This scale had an alpha of .95.

Table 1

Items used to assess the leadership subdimensions

Subdimension Leadership items

Vision 1. Has a clear understanding of where we are going

2. Has a clear sense of where he/she wants our unit to be in 5 years

3. Has no idea where the organization is going (R)

Inspirational communication 1. Says things that make employees proud to be a part of this organization

2. Says positive things about the work unit

3. Encourages people to see changing environments as situations full of opportunities

Intellectual stimulation 1. Challenges me to think about old problems in new ways

2. Has ideas that have forced me to rethink some things that I have never questioned before

3. Has challenged me to rethink some of my basic assumptions about my work

Supportive leadership 1. Considers my personal feelings before acting

2. Behaves in a manner which is thoughtful of my personal needs

3. Sees that the interests of employees are given due consideration

Personal recognition 1. Commends me when I do a better than average job

2. Acknowledges improvement in my quality of work

3. Personally compliments me when I do outstanding work

(R) indicates that the item was reverse-scored.

A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354 339

2.2.6. Personal recognition

Three items reported by Podsakoff et al. (1990) were adapted to assess this construct. An example of

an item was ''commends me when I do a better than average job.'' This scale had an alpha of .96.

2.3. Outcome measures

Five outcome variables and one marker variable were assessed. A marker variable is the best

estimate of CMV in a data set (Lindell & Whitney, 2001). A marker variable is selected on the

basis that it is theoretically unrelated to the substantive constructs of interest and has a correlation

with at least one of those variables that is close to zero (Lindell & Whitney, 2001; Richardson et

al., 2003).

A 5-point Likert scale was used for all of the outcome measures and the marker variable, with

the exception of RBSE. 1 referred to ''strongly disagree'' while 5 referred to ''strongly agree.'' A

7-point scale was used for RBSE, and 1 referred to ''not at all confident'' and 7 referred to ''very

confident.''

2.3.1. Affective commitment to the organization

Four items assessed this construct (Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993) . An example of an item in this scale

was ''this organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me.'' This scale had a Cronbach's alpha

of .80.

2.3.2. Continuance commitment to the organization

Three items assessed this construct (Meyer et al., 1993) , and an example of an item was ''it would be

very hard for me to leave this organization even if I wanted to.'' This scale had an alpha of .76.

2.3.3. Role breadth self-efficacy

Four items developed by Parker (1998) assessed this construct. An example of an item in this scale

was ''I feel confident representing my work area in meetings with senior management.'' This scale had

an alpha of .87.

2.3.4. Interpersonal helping behavior

Three items were adapted from Moorman and Blakely's (1995) scale to assess interpersonal helping

behaviors. Respondents were asked to report on the extent to which they had displayed interpersonal

helping behaviors in the last 6 months. An example of an item was ''I helped colleagues with problems.''

This scale had an alpha of .76.

2.3.5. Turnover intentions

This construct assesses an individual's intentions to leave his or her job, and was assessed by three

items. An example of an item was ''I seriously intend to seek a transfer to another job in the future.''

This scale had an alpha of .75.

2.3.6. Bureaucracy

This construct acted as a marker variable in this study, and assesses the relative emphasis on rules and

''red tape'' within an organization. Three items assessed this construct (Hage & Aiken, 1967) . This scale

A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354 340

Table 2

Zero-order correlations between the study variables

Scale Mean SD 1234567891011

1. Vision 3.37 1.04 (.82)

2. IS

2.94 0.99 .57*** (.84)

3. Inspiration 2.94 1.06 .67*** .63*** (.88)

4. Support 2.90 1.20 .59*** .56*** .75*** (.95)

5. Recognition 2.91 1.23 .59*** .59*** .74*** .78*** (.96)

6. RBSE 3.67 0.95 .11*** .12*** .19*** .16*** .17*** (.87)

7. AC

2.80 1.02 .25*** .30*** .34*** .29*** .28*** .14*** (.80)

8. CC

2.91 0.29  .13*** .00  .09** .08**  .11***  .13*** .17*** (.76)

9. TO

2.30 1.10  .21*** .19***  .22*** .20***  .18*** .03  .32***  .16*** (.75)

10. Helping 4.15 0.61 .07** .09** .10*** .08** .06* .29*** .15***  .01  .03 (.76)

11. Bureaucracy 3.76 0.91  .08**  .14***  .21*** .18***  .17***  .02  .03 .12*** .07* .15*** (.71)

Cronbach's alphas are reported on the diagonal. N ranges from 1357 to 1398.

IS = Intellectual stimulation.

AC = Affective commitment.

CC = Continuance commitment.

TO = Turnover intentions.

*p < .05.

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.

A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354 341

had a Cronbach's alpha of .71. An example of an item in this scale was ''decisions must go through

many levels of management before they are finalized.''

3. Results

3.1. Overview of analyses

Hypotheses were assessed through three sets of analyses. First, we conducted a series of CFA

models using LISREL 8.3 (Jo¨reskog & Sorbom, 1996) to establish the measurement properties

of the 34 items assessed in this study. Next, we examined the discriminant validity of the five

leadership factors by specifying correlational constraints between the leadership factors and

outcomes. Finally, we estimated a structural model linking the leadership factors to the outcome

measures.

3.2. Descriptive statistics

Table 2 displays the means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations among the

leadership factors, the outcome variables, and bureaucracy, the marker variable used in this study.

Bureaucracy was selected as the best estimate of CMV in the data set as it displayed small to

moderate relationships with the substantive variables, and had a relationship with two of the

substantive variables that approached zero (r = .02 with RBSE and r = .03 with affective

commitment).

Table 3

Model comparisons for the measurement and structural models

Models v

df NNFI RMSEA CFI GFI

Model 1

1345.87 451 .96 .04 .97 .95

Model 2

1579.75 482 .96 .04 .97 .94

Model 3

1574.74 481 .96 .04 .97 .94

Model 4

1345.87 451 .96 .04 .97 .95

Model 5

1579.75 482 .96 .04 .97 .94

Model 6

1348.87 476 .97 .04 .97 .95

Model 7

1698.72 476 .96 .04 .96 .93

N= 1236.

Model 1: Measurement model with unequal loadings from method factor.

Model 2: Measurement model with no loadings from the method factor.

Model 3: Measurement model with loadings from the method factor to substantive indicators constrained to be equal.

Model 4: Saturated structural model with unequal loadings from the method factor to substantive indicators.

Model 5: Saturated structural model with loadings from the method factor to substantive indicators constrained to be zero.

Model 6: Model 4 with relationships between the leadership factors and outcomes set to the unstandardized values obtained

from Model 5.

Model 7: Model 6 with no relationships between the leadership factors and outcomes.

A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354 342

3.3. Measurement model

To assess the factor structure of the measures in the study, we tested a series of CFA models (see Table

3). Analysis was conducted on the responses of the 1236 individuals who provided complete responses

to the survey. Each model included all 34 items from the 11 variables assessed in this study. The method

factor was indicated by the three bureaucracy items. Method effects were represented by factor loadings

from bureaucracy (the marker variable) to the indicators of the substantive constructs.

In Model 1, the loadings from the method factor to the 31 items assessing the substantive variables were

free to vary. Table 3 shows that Model 1, the measurement model including method effects, provided a

good fit to the data [v

(451) = 1345.87, p < .001; GFI=.95, CFI=.97, NNFI=.96, RMSEA=.04].

In Model 2, we constrained to zero the 31 paths from the method factor to the indicators of the

substantive constructs. Therefore, comparison of Models 1 and 2 tested whether there were significant

method effects in the data set. Model 1 was a significantly better fit to the data than Model 2

[D v

(31) = 233.88, p < .001], indicating that significant method effects were present.

Next, Model 3 tested whether the method factor had an equally strong influence on each indicator of

the substantive constructs by constraining these loadings to be equal. Model 1 was a significantly better

fit than Model 3 [D v

(30) = 228.87, p < .001]. This result indicates that method effects were not equal for

indicators within substantive constructs.

On the basis of the above model comparisons, the measurement model examined in this study

included a common method factor that loaded on all items in the study, with these loadings free to vary.

This measurement model, Model 1, became the basis for all subsequent comparisons.

3.4. Discriminant validity

We next tested the discriminant validity of the five leadership factors with each other. The

unconstrained measurement model (Model 1) was compared to a series of models in which the

relationship between each pair of the leadership factors was set to 1.00. A chi-square difference test

was performed on the values obtained for the unconstrained and the 10 constrained measurement

models.

A significantly lower m

value for the unconstrained model indicates that the leadership factors that

have been constrained to be equal are not perfectly correlated, and that discriminant validity exists

(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Analysis suggested that for all 10 comparisons the chi-square difference

test was significant at the .001 probability level. This result indicates that the leadership factors were

distinct from each other (these model comparisons are available from the first author).

Next, we tested the discriminant validity of the five leadership factors with the outcomes. For these

analyses, we constrained the correlation between each of the leadership factors and each outcome

variable to be equal to 1.00. Again, in each case the constrained model was a significantly poorer fit to

the data at the .001 probability level when compared with the unconstrained model. These results

indicate that the leadership factors were differentially related to the outcome measures (these model

comparisons are available from the first author).

In summary, Model 1 provided a good fit to the data. This model included significant method effects

indicating that it was important to consider the role of CMV in the study. Comparison of models

indicated that the leadership factors were distinct from each other and displayed different patterns of

correlation with the outcome variables.

A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354 343

Table 4 displays the standardized parameter estimates for the measurement model that is used in this

study (Model 1). All of the model parameters loaded significantly on their hypothesized factor at p < .001,

and the latent factors explained substantial amounts of item variance (R

ranged from .22 to .91).

Table 4

Standardized parameter estimates for Model 1

Item Vision IS

Support RE

RBSE Helping AC

1. Vision 1 .87 .27 .83

2. Vision 2 .81 .19 .69

3. Vision 3 .57 .26 .39

4. Intellectual 1 .80 .22 .68

5. Intellectual 2 .82 .15 .69

6. Intellectual 3 .72 .13 .54

7. Inspiration 1 .82 .24 .73

8. Inspiration 2 .80 .24 .70

9. Inspiration 3 .80 .25 .70

10. Support 1 .89 .20 .83

11. Support 2 .93 .20 .91

12. Support 3 .88 .25 .84

13. Recognition 1 .93 .22 .91

14. Recognition 2 .90 .23 .87

15. Recognition 3 .91 .22 .88

16. Turnover 1 .73  .07 .54

17. Turnover 2 .60  .07 .37

18. Turnover 3 .79  .09 .63

19. RBSE 1 .69 .04 .48

20. RBSE 2 .86 .04 .75

21. RBSE 3 .85 .06 .73

22. RBSE 4 .79 .04 .62

23. Helping 1 .62  .06 .39

24. Helping 2 .82  .19 .70

25. Helping 3 .68  .12 .48

26. Affective 1 .86 .03 .75

27. Affective 2 .72 .05 .52

28. Affective 3 .90 .11 .83

29. Continuance 1 .69  .13 .50

30. Continuance 2 .86  .14 .77

31. Continuance 3 .85  .14 .74

32. Bureaucracy 1  .47 .22

33. Bureaucracy 2  .76 .57

34. Bureaucracy 3  .79 .63

N= 1236.

IS = Intellectual stimulation.

IC = Inspirational communication.

RE = Personal recognition.

TO = Turnover intentions.

AC = Affective commitment.

CC = Continuance commitment.

BU = Bureaucracy.

A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354 344

In addition, Table 4 displays the factor loadings of the substantive variables on the method factor.

With the exception of the four RBSE items and two of the affective commitment items, all of the study

items loaded significantly on the method factor ( p < .05).

Factor intercorrelations for Model 1 are presented in Table 5 . While the above analyses provide clear

support for distinctions among the leadership factors, the leadership subdimensions are strongly

positively correlated with each other (r > .60 in all cases). Inspirational communication and supportive

leadership were strongly related (r =.81, p < .001), as were inspirational communication and personal

recognition (r =.80, p < .001), and personal recognition and supportive leadership (r =.80, p < .001). The

average correlation among the latent transformational factors was .70, and the average correlation among

the latent transformational factors and personal recognition was .71.

3.5. Structural model

The next set of analyses examined the structural paths between the leadership factors and the outcome

factors. The leadership factors were free to intercorrelate as were the outcome measures in all of the

structural models estimated. Estimating the structural model allowed us to test the significance of the

specific paths between the leadership factors and the outcome factors, to examine the influence of CMV

on these paths, and to evaluate alternative models.

First, we tested a saturated structural model in which all the leadership factors were related to all the

outcome measures (Model 4; see Table 3 ). Loadings from the method factor to the indicators of the

substantive constructs were free to vary. Because this model was saturated, the fit was exactly the same as

the measurement model (Model 1), which was a good fit to the data. This model allowed us to estimate the

value of structural paths between leadership and outcomes when methods effects were included.

Table 5

Factor intercorrelations in Model 1

Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Vision

2. IS

.67***

3. Inspiration .75*** .73***

4. Support .63*** .61*** .81***

5. RE

.63*** .64*** .80*** .80***

6. TO

.22*** .21*** .24*** .20*** .18***

7. RBSE .12*** .15*** .22*** .17*** .19*** .05

8. Helping .14*** .14*** .18*** .13*** .11***  .03 .37***

9. AC

.29*** .36*** .40*** .32*** .32** .40*** .15*** .19***

10. CC

.09** .05 .01 .01 .06* .31*** .18*** .03 .29***

N= 1236.

IS = Intellectual stimulation.

RE = Personal recognition.

TO = Turnover intentions.

AC = Affective commitment.

CC = Continuance commitment.

*p < .05.

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.

A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354 345

Next, we estimated a model in which the loadings from the method factor to the indicators of the

substantive constructs were set to zero (Model 5; see Table 3 ). This model allowed us to estimate the

value of structural paths between leadership and outcomes when CMV was not included.

To test whether the method factor was having a significant effect on the structural paths, we estimated

a sixth model (Model 6). In this model, the method factor was included, but the structural paths were

constrained to be equal to the estimates from Model 5, in which no method factor was included. A

significant difference in fit between Model 4 and Model 6 would indicate that the structural paths were

influenced by CMV.

Model 6 was not significantly different to Model 4 [Dv

(25) = 3.00, p >.05]. From this result, it can be

concluded that method effects did not significantly change the estimated values of the structural paths.

Therefore, Model 4 was used as the final structural model with which to test the hypotheses.

Finally, to test the contribution of the structural parameters to the overall fit of the model, we

estimated a null model that included common method effects (Model 7; see Table 3 ). In this model,

relationships between the leadership factors and the outcome variables were set to zero. Comparison of

this null model with Model 4 provides a test whether relationships between the leadership factors and

outcomes are equal to zero. Model 4 was a significantly better fit to the data than Model 7, indicating

that the structural paths were necessary for the overall fit of the model.

In summary, Model 4 which controlled for method effects was a good fit to the data and was a

significantly better fit than a range of other nested models. Therefore, this model was used to test the

specific hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1 stated that vision and inspirational communication are uniquely positively related to

affective commitment. This hypothesis was partially supported, as inspirational communication (b=.34,

p< .001) had a unique positive relationship with affective commitment (see Table 6).

In addition, intellectual stimulation (b =.17, p < .001) was significantly positively associated with

affective commitment (see Table 6). Contrary to expectations, however, vision did not display a

significant unique positive relationship with affective commitment (b = .07, p>.05).

Hypothesis 2 stated that personal recognition has a unique positive relationship with continuance

commitment. This hypothesis was not supported as personal recognition (b= .19, p < .01) displayed a

significant negative relationship with continuance commitment. In addition, vision (b = .23, p < .001)

was also significantly negatively associated with continuance commitment. Intellectual stimulation was

Table 6

Betas in the saturated structural model including method effects (Model 4)

Leadership subdimension Affective

commitment

Continuance

commitment

Turnover

intentions

Helping RBSE

1. Vision  .07  .23***  .08 .01  .11*

2. Intellectual stimulation .17*** .20***  .05 .04 .00

3. Inspirational communication .34*** .11  .16 .23* .27**

4. Supportive leadership .01 .07  .05 .00 .05

5. Personal recognition  .04  .19** .06  .11 .08

N= 1236.

*p < .05.

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.

A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354 346

also significantly positively associated with continuance commitment (b =.20, p < .001), although this

relationship was not hypothesized.

Hypothesis 3 stated that inspirational communication has a unique positive relationship with RBSE.

This hypothesis was supported (b =.27, p < .01). However, vision also displayed a significant negative

relationship with RBSE (b = .11, p < .05), although this relationship should be interpreted with caution

as the zero-order correlation between vision and RBSE was positive (r =.11, p < .001).

Hypothesis 4 stated that supportive leadership has a unique positive relationship with interpersonal

helping. This hypothesis was not supported (b =.00, p >.05). However, inspirational communication was

significantly positively associated with interpersonal helping behaviors (b =.23, p < .05).

Hypothesis 5 stated that vision has a unique negative relationship with turnover intentions. This

hypothesis was not supported. Vision was not significantly associated with turnover intentions

(b = .08, p>.05).

4. Discussion

Our study provided support for the five-factor leadership model that distinguishes between vision,

inspirational communication, intellectual stimulation, supportive leadership, and personal recognition.

Although these constructs were correlated with each other, they were distinct in some important ways,

even after accounting for the effects of CMV. These findings suggest that it is appropriate to examine the

individual leadership subdimensions as opposed to a higher-order transformational leadership factor.

Below, we examine the results for each of the five leadership factors examined in this study.

4.1. Vision

One of the most interesting set of findings obtained in this study involves the relationships among

articulation of a vision and outcomes. First, vision displayed a unique negative association with

continuance commitment. This relationship was evident in both the zero-order relationships and in the

structural model. This finding was not hypothesized, and conflicts with the general wisdom in the

leadership field. However, a number of alternate expectations regarding the relationship between vision

and continuance commitment could be conceived.

On the one hand, it could be hypothesized that vision is likely to be positively associated with

continuance commitment as articulating an idealized picture of the future increases people's investment

in the future of an organization. On the other hand, it could be argued that articulating a vision will

expand people's awareness of the possibilities inherent in their environment. If this is the case, then

vision may be associated with a decrease in continuance commitment by empowering people and

positively influencing their perceptions of the opportunities available to them.

At present, we are unable to select between the alternatives proposed above. There is a clear need for

more attention to be devoted to understanding the theoretical nature of the relationship between vision

and continuance commitment. In addition, it is also important to replicate the relationship reported in this

study as very few authors have examined the construct of continuance commitment in relation to

transformational leadership.

Vision also displayed a significant negative relationship with RBSE. Post hoc exploration of this

result suggested that the relationship between vision and RBSE was negative only after controlling for

A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354 347

the relationship between inspirational communication and RBSE. This suggests that in the absence of

inspirational communication, expression of a vision is associated with a reduction in followers'

confidence. However, this result needs to be interpreted cautiously as there was a positive zero-order

correlation between vision and RBSE.

The findings of this study raise the possibility that articulating a vision does not always have a

positive influence on followers. Some previous work conducted by Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, and Popper

(1998) in the Israeli Defense Forces provides support for this idea. In particular, Shamir et al. reported

that leader behaviors designed to link employees' self-concepts with the organizational mission such as

adopting an ideological approach or setting a personal example, were either unrelated or negatively

related to followers' perceptions of and attitudes toward the leader and the unit. There is a need for

researchers to explore the conditions under which articulation of a vision positively impacts on followers

and those conditions under which vision has a negative impact on followers.

4.2. Inspirational communication

Our study also revealed that inspirational communication was significantly positively associated

with RBSE, affective commitment, and interpersonal helping. Expressing positive and encouraging

messages about the organization was positively associated with emotional attachment to a firm,

individuals' confidence in their capacity to carry out a range of proactive and integrative tasks, and

the extent to which people voluntarily helped others with or prevented the occurrence of work-

related problems.

It is interesting to contrast the relationships between vision and inspirational communication and

follower outcomes. Inspirational communication was strongly positively associated with three of the

five outcomes examined, while vision was negatively associated with two of the five outcomes

studied. These results support the importance of distinguishing between vision and inspirational

leadership, and highlight the need for future research to further address the distinction between these

constructs.

4.3. Intellectual stimulation

Intellectual stimulation displayed a unique positive relationship with affective commitment to the

organization and with continuance commitment to the organization. The positive relationship between

affective commitment and intellectual stimulation contrasts with past research findings that have

reported that intellectual stimulation has a negative impact on employees (e.g. Podsakoff et al., 1990).

Podsakoff et al. (1990) reported that intellectual stimulation was negatively associated with a number

of employee attitudes including trust in the leader and satisfaction. These authors explained their

findings by suggesting that intellectual stimulation is associated with higher levels of role ambiguity,

conflict, and stress in the workplace. We suggest that while intellectual stimulation may enhance

ambiguity and conflict in the workplace, employees may also feel valued when they are encouraged to

actively engage in a firm.

Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, and Sowa (1986) discuss perceived organizational support,

which refers to employees' global beliefs concerning the extent to which an organization values their

contributions and cares about their well-being. These authors suggested that to the extent that perceived

support meets needs for approval and praise, individuals incorporate organizational membership into

A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354 348

their self-identity and thus, develop a positive emotional bond to the organization. Intellectual

stimulation may be one way in which leaders indicate to employees that their firm values their

contribution, which increases affective commitment to the organization.

Intellectual stimulation was also significantly positively associated with continuance commitment.

One explanation for this result is that when leaders encourage followers to consider problems in new

ways and to actively engage in the workplace, employees experience an increased sense of investment in

an organization based on the increased effort they are exerting. This increased sense of investment

increases continuance commitment.

4.4. Personal recognition

We proposed that when people received recognition for their work then they would feel an increased

sense of investment in an organization. Contrary to expectations, personal recognition was significantly

negatively associated with continuance commitment. This unexpected result might be explained by

considering the additional aspect of continuance commitment assessed in measures of this construct.

That is, authors have suggested that the continuance commitment scale assesses investments and

perceptions of alternative employment options (McGee & Ford, 1987).

To the extent that personal recognition provides information about individuals' worth, they might

perceive a greater ability to move to new opportunities. Alternatively, when the only rewards that are

available for use by leaders are verbal encouragement or rewards of a personal nature, this may result in

follower frustration as people do not feel that they are being adequately rewarded for performance.

Increased frustration may lead individuals to evaluate alternative opportunities more positively, reducing

continuance commitment to the organization.

4.5. Supportive leadership

Finally, supportive leadership did not display any significant unique relationships with the outcome

variables after statistically controlling for the influence of the other leadership factors and CMV.

Analyses supported the distinction between supportive leadership and the other leadership constructs.

However, the lack of a unique relationship between supportive leadership and the outcome measures

raises some questions about the meaning of this distinction.

Results of this study suggest that further attention should be directed towards examining whether

supportive leadership is truly ''transformational'' as determined by its relationships with followers'

motivation, needs, and values (Shamir et al., 1993) . Research on the path –goal theory (e.g., House,

1996) has suggested that supportive leadership is primarily associated with satisfaction and not

motivational outcomes or attachment to the organization. If this is the case, there may be a need to

reconsider existing definitions of the construct of individualized consideration, which currently

encompass supportive leadership.

4.6. Practical implications

There are a number of important practical implications that arise from the findings of this study. Most

importantly, results suggest that it will be useful to evaluate the different components of leadership

identified in this study for purposes such as performance appraisal, training and development, and

A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354 349

succession planning. The constructs represent distinct attributes that should be considered when

organizations seek to select and train leaders.

In addition, our analysis indicates managers can have a powerful positive effect on employees by

expressing positive and encouraging messages to staff. Inspirational communication seems to be

particularly important when expressing a vision for the future. In the absence of encouragement and

confidence building efforts, articulating a vision may have a neutral or even negative influence on

employees.

Another practical implication concerns intellectual stimulation. This leadership factor displayed a range

of different relationships with outcomes. Specifically, intellectual stimulation was positively associated

with affective attachment to an organization and attachment based on a recognition of the costs associated

with leaving an organization. Leaders who engage in intellectual stimulation may need to consider that

while they are increasing emotional attachment to a firm, they are also enhancing followers' sense that they

are ''tied'' to the organization. Research suggests that individuals that have strong continuance commit-

ment to an organization are less likely to make positive contributions to a firm (Meyer & Allen, 1997).

4.7. Future research

A number of areas for future research are highlighted by the findings of the current study. One area

that clearly requires additional research is the influence of vision on employees. Past studies have

reported that articulating a vision has a strong positive impact on employees. This finding was not

replicated in this study when the influence of the other leadership constructs was taken into account.

One explanation for this result is that the vision items used in this study may have influenced results.

Berson, Shamir, Avolio, and Popper (2001) distinguished between ''strong'' and ''weak'' visions. A

strong vision is optimistic, motivating, and energizing. Berson et al. reported that the degree of optimism

and confidence expressed in a vision is particularly important in determining whether a vision is strong

in terms of its appeal to followers.

Examination of the items used to assess vision in the current study suggests that optimism and

confidence were not addressed. Rather, the items were concerned with the existence of a vision, and the

degree of importance that leaders are able to attach to the vision. As such, the operationalization of

vision used in the current study is ''weak,'' and the positive effect of vision may be underestimated in

this study. It is important that researchers continue to examine the impact of ''strong'' and ''weak''

visions on employee attitudes in order to determine when this distinction is important for employees.

A related explanation for the surprising results regarding the relationship between vision and

outcomes concerns the failure to examine the content of leadership vision in this study. Recent research

has emphasized the importance of considering the type of vision that leaders articulate (e.g., Awamleh &

Gardner, 1999; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996).

Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) found that vision statements that emphasized product quality were

related to increased trust, leader–follower goal congruence, and inspiration. In contrast, vision state-

ments that provided task cues increased understanding and were also intellectually stimulating. Future

research should further explore the influence of vision content on employee attitudes in order to increase

our understanding of the influence of vision on followers.

Another interesting area for future research concerns Bass' (1985) subdimension of individualized

consideration. In this study we only examined supportive leadership, and did not examine the

developmental component of individualized consideration. Future research should continue the work

A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354 350

of Dvir et al. (2002) and Dvir and Shamir (2003) , who have begun to examine the impact of

transformational leaders on follower development.

4.8. Limitations

One of the key limitations of the current study was that the design involved a single survey at a single

point in time. Podsakoff and Organ (1986) stated that when measures are collected from a single source,

any defect in that source will contaminate both measures, presumably in the same fashion and in the

same direction. We statistically controlled for the effects of CMV using an approach developed by

Williams and Anderson (1994). Analysis indicated that CMV was present in the data, but that method

variance did not significantly change the estimated values of the structural paths linking the leadership

factors to outcomes.

The design also does not rule out the possibility that the path of causation is the reverse of that

hypothesized. That is, we operated under the assumption that leaders influence employees' attitudes.

However, it is possible that followers' attitudes influenced their ratings of their work group leaders. In

order to address this concern, there is a need to conduct longitudinal or experimental research where

leadership ratings are collected prior to attitude measures.

In conclusion, ambiguity has surrounded the theoretical conceptualization of the subdimensions of

transformational leadership and this has been reflected in conflicting empirical results. Our study focused

attention on the theoretical basis of transformational leadership, and differentiated more specific

leadership dimensions. Analysis suggested that these dimensions have practical value for organizations

and encourages further research into the nature and impact of transformational leadership.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Stephen Maugham and Mark Fenelon for their help in the data

collection phase of this project.

References

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, normative commitment to the

organization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology ,63(1), 1–18.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step

approach. Psychological Bulletin , 103 (3), 411– 423.

Arthur, J. A. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of Management

Journal,37(3), 670 –687.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for

examining the influence of transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly , 6 , 199– 218.

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

leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 72,

441–462.

Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. M. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: The effects of vision content,

delivery, organizational performance. The Leadership Quarterly ,10(3), 345 – 373.

A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354 351

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control . New York: W.H. Freeman.

Barbuto, J. E. (1997). Taking the charisma out of transformational leadership. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality , 12

(3), 689–697.

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations . New York: The Free Press.

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

Organizational Psychology ,8(1), 9–32.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The implications of transactional and transformational leadership for individual, team,

organizational development. Research in Organizational Change and Development , 4 , 231– 272.

Becker, B., & Gerhart, B. (1996). The impact of human resource management on organizational performance: Progress and

prospects. Academy of Management Journal , 39 (4), 779 – 801.

Berson, Y., Shamir, B., Avolio, B. J., & Popper, M. (2001). The relationship between vision strength, leadership style, context.

The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 53– 73.

Beyer, J. M. (1999). Taming and promoting charisma to change organizations. The Leadership Quarterly ,10(2), 307–330.

Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations . London: Sage Publications.

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

Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass' 1985 conceptualization of transactional and

transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology , 80 (4), 468– 478.

Carless, S. A. (1998). Assessing the discriminant validity of transformational leadership behaviour as measured by the MLQ.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 353– 358.

Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis

of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 70 , 19– 34.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and

performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal , 45 (4), 735 – 744.

Dvir, T., & Shamir, B. (2003). Follower developmental characteristics as predicting transformational leadership: A longitudinal

field study. The Leadership Quarterly ,14, 327–344.

Downton, J. V. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma in the revolutionary process . New York: The Free Press.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinnson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied

Psychology,71, 500– 507.

Gist, M., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of

Management Review, 17(2), 183– 211.

Goodwin, V. L., Wofford, J. C., & Whittington, J. L. (2001). A theoretical and empirical extension to the transformational

leadership construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 22 , 759– 774.

Hage, J., & Aiken, M. (1967). Relationship of centralization to other structural properties. Administrative Science Quarterly , 12,

72–92.

House, R. J. (1971). A path – goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly , 16 , 321–339.

House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt, & L. L. Lawson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting

edge (pp. 189–207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

House, R. J. (1996). Path – goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly ,7(3),

323–353.

House, R. J. (1998). Appendix: Measures and assessments for the charismatic leadership approach: Scales, latent constructs,

loadings, Cronbach alphas, interclass correlations. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-

level approaches contemporary and alternative, (24, Part B, pp. 23–30). London: JAI Press.

Jo¨ reskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8; User's reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.

Jung, D. I., & Sosik, J. J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups: The role of empowerment, cohesiveness,

collective efficacy on perceived group performance. Small Group Research , 33 (3), 313– 336.

Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and

Human Performance, 22, 375 – 403.

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

performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology , 81 (1), 36– 51.

Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.

A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354 352

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional

leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly , 7 (3), 385 –425.

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, consequences of organiza-

tional commitment. Psychological Bulletin , 108 (2), 171 –194.

McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience . New York: Irvington Publishers.

McGee, G. W., & Ford, R. C. (1987). Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational commitment: Re-examination of the

affective and continuance scales. Journal of Applied Psychology , 72 (4), 638– 642.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, application . Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three

component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology , 78 , 538– 551.

Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism– collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational

citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior ,16, 127–142.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome . Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational

citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology ,48, 775–802.

Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 835– 852.

Parker, S. K. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role orientations and role breadth self-

efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review ,49(3), 447–469.

Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and

transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of Management , 25 (6), 897– 933.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. M. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Man-

agement,12(4), 531–544.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects

on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly ,1 (2), 107–142.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leadership behaviors and substitutes for

leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of

Management,22(2), 259–298.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: a

critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management,

26(3), 513–563.

Richardson, H. A., Simmering, M. J., & Roman, P. M. (2003). A comparison of statistical corrections for common method

variance. Paper presented at the Southern Management Association meeting in Clearwater, Florida.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. A. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based

theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577– 594.

Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Sub-

ordinates' attitudes, unit characteristics, superiors' appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal,

41(4), 387–409.

Tejeda, M. J., Scandura, T. A., & Pillai, R. (2001). The MLQ revisited: Psychometric properties and recommendations. The

Leadership Quarterly, 12, 31– 52.

Tepper, B. J., & Percy, P. M. (1994). Structural validity of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 54(3), 734– 744.

Vancouver, J. B., & Schmitt, N. W. (1991). An exploratory examination of person– organization fit: Organizational goal

congruence. Personnel Psychology , 44 , 333– 352.

Vancouver, J. B., Millsap, R. E., & Peters, P. A. (1994). Multilevel analysis of organizational goal congruence. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 79(5), 666– 679.

Vandenberg, R. J., Richardson, H. A., & Eastman, L. A. (1999). The impact of high involvement work processes on organi-

zational effectiveness: A second-order latent variable approach. Group and Organization Management , 24 (3), 300– 339.

Weber, M. (1968). On charisma and institution building . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1994). An alternative approach to method effects by using latent-variable models:

Applications in organizational behavior research. Journal of Applied Psychology , 79 (3), 323– 331.

A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354 353

Williams, L. J., & Hazer, J. T. (1986). Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and commitment in turnover models: A

reanalysis using structural equation models. Journal of Applied Psychology , 71 (2), 219– 231.

Yukl, G. A. (1981). Leadership in organizations . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Yukl, G. (1999a). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership. The Leadership

Quarterly,10(2), 285– 305.

Yukl, G. (1999b). An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership. European Journal of Work and Orga-

nizational Psychology, 8 (1), 33– 48.

A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329–354 354

... As global environments become more turbulent, highly competitive, and reliant on new technologies, they call for "high involvement" organisations with decentralized authority, flexible structures, and fewer managerial levels (Drucker, 1988;Lawler, 1995). Transformational leaders motivate subordinates to transcend their own self-interests for the good of the group or organisation by setting high standards for performance and then developing subordinates to achieve these standards (Bass -Avolio -Atwater, 1996;Rafferty -Griffin, 2004). Transformational leaders exhibit four types of behaviour (Powell, 2012): charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. ...

... In contrast with the transformational leaders, transactional leaders focus on clarifying the responsibilities of subordinates and then responding to how well subordinates execute their responsibilities (Bass -Avolio -Atwater, 1996;Rafferty -Griffin, 2004). They exhibit two kinds of behaviour: contingent reward (by promising and providing suitable rewards if followers achieve their assigned objectives); and management by exception (by intervening to correct follower performance either in anticipation of a problem or after a problem has occurred). ...

Mária Dunavölgyi

Nowadays, questions on the low female participation in senior management are considered and analysed not only within the academic community, but are also discussed and debated by politicians and business representatives. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the key issues and possible approaches to the topic. In the first part, the author focuses on leadership styles: contemporary issues, theoretical considerations and empirical research results. Based on the findings that support the comparative advantages of diverse leadership teams, the author deals with the recommendations on the optimal gender composition of senior management teams. As empirical data are not in line with the recommendations, the author draws attention to the challenges related to talent recognition in the case of potential women leaders and the unequal opportunities in manager selection, such as important factors of low female representation in senior management. Academic articles on terminology, alternative values, special contributions, meritocracy and the social and cultural aspects of unequal opportunities are covered in order to highlight the main factors of the topics discussed.

... Numerous studies have shown that transformational leadership has a positive impact on organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Long et al., 2014;Nielsen et al., 2009). The interdependence between transformational leadership and acceptance of change, adaptation to change and satisfaction with change by employees was confirmed (Nemanich & Keller, 2007;Wang et al., 2017), and that transformational leadership has a significant impact on employee commitment to organizational change (Herold et al., 2008;Rafferty & Griffin, 2004;Top et al., 2015). ...

... The presented results of the conducted research confirmed the set hypotheses, as well as the results of previous research in which it was proven that transformational leadership has a positive impact on organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Long et al., 2014;Nielsen et al., 2009), acceptance of change, adaptation to change and satisfaction with change by employees (Nemanich & Keller, 2007;Wang et al., 2017), and that transformational leadership has a significant impact on employee commitment to organizational change (Herold et al. , 2008;Rafferty & Griffin, 2004;Top et al., 2015). Compared to previous research, a step forward has been made by examining the mediator impact of job satisfaction in relation to commitment to organizational change (Dung et al., 2020). ...

The complex and dynamic environment in which modern companies operate requires frequent organizational changes that are used as a mechanism for adapting the company's business to market requirements, in order to improve or maintain a competitive advantage. Mergers and acquisitions, as a complex form of organizational change of companies, represent a relevant problem area of research. Since the success of organizational change depends on two important factors, leaders and employees, the aim of this research is to identify the interdependence of transformational leadership, job satisfaction and commitment to organizational change by employees in the post-acquisition period. The research results show that there is interdependence between transformational leadership, job satisfaction and commitment to organizational change in the post-acquisition period. The empirical research was conducted in 2021, using a survey method. Data were analyzed using Pearson's correlation and single as well as multiple regression method. A sample of 129 respondents was taken into accounts, who are employed in companies in the Republic of Serbia that have gone through the acquisition process in the last five years.

... Both types of OR stimulate the individual positive attitudes and encourage productivity. Supervisory support is an additional determinant of organisational commitment amongst employees and includes caring about subordinates, valuing their contributions, helping them on work-related issues and facilitating their skill development (Rafferty & Griffin 2004). Frederico (2015) concluded that a leader who shows great consideration for the subordinates' contributions, well-being, personal growth and development will be perceived as fair and in turn instils a greater sense of belonging and confidence. ...

Shallone Munongo
David Pooe

Orientation: Despite the growing feminisation of the global labour market, discrimination against women in the workplace remains entrenched. Such discrimination of women is largely attributed to human resources management (HRM) policies and management practices which are inherently masculine, designed by men for men.Research purpose: The aim of this study was to explore the influence of human resources management practices on the organisational commitment among female professionals in Zimbabwe.Motivation for the study: Notwithstanding the growing scholarly interest in the factors which can help retain women in the workplaces, there remains a paucity of studies from developing countries on how HRM practices influence female professionals' organisational commitment in the workplace. Dearth in empirical literature is pronounced in Africa, particularly in a society such as Zimbabwe punctuated by patriarchy and an economy that has been depressed for over two decades.Research design, approach and method: The study adopted a quantitative research approach and employed a cross-sectional survey of 210 female professionals employed in the private and public sectors in Zimbabwe. Structural equation modelling was employed for data analysis using AMOS 25.0.Main findings: The results of the study revealed positive and significant relationships between women-friendly HR management practices and organisational commitment of female employees.Practical/managerial implications: Premised on these findings, the study recommended that it is imperative for HR management to implement non-discriminatory rewards systems, increase family-friendly policies, prioritise continuous training and charter clear progressive career development programs for the female employees.Contribution/value-add: This study provides managers with a better perspective of the predictors of organisational commitment among female professionals in an African context.

... Although the impact of various organizational and individual factors on KH has been studied (Wang & NOE, 2010), efforts to examine the role of interpersonal factors such as that of immediate leader behavior on KH have been rare . Among all the interpersonal relationships that an employee forges within an organization, a distinct work relationship and one that plays a significant role in impacting employee attitudes and behaviors is the relationship with the immediate supervisor (Rafferty & Griffin, 2004). Supervisors, in their position of power, serve as legitimate role models to their subordinates. ...

This paper tests the mediating role of knowledge hiding in the ethical leadership–employee well-being relationship. The moderated mediation examines the impact of individual characteristics (self-enhancement motives and job involvement) on employee well-being through knowledge hiding. The hypotheses are supported by multi-source data collected at two points from 410 employee and co-worker dyads from emerging Indian multinational enterprises. Results reveal that ethical leadership reduces knowledge hiding behavior, which, in turn, strengthens the well-being of employees. Individual characteristics moderate this relationship such that the negative impact of ethical leadership on knowledge hiding is more pronounced when self-enhancement motives and job involvement are high. Finally, the moderated mediation suggests that individual characteristics act as catalysts and ameliorate the indirect negative impact of ethical leadership on employee well-being through knowledge hiding.

... ). Prior investigations have underlined a strong nexus between TL and ER(Bass and Bass Bernard 1985;Rafferty and Griffin 2004;Nielsen, Randall et al. 2008;Para-González, Jiménez- Jiménez et al. 2018;Yizhong, Baranchenko et al. 2019). In this manner, TL is hypothesized as: ...

Muhammad Murtaza Raziq
Tahir Hussain Rizvi
Ayesha Mahjabeen

The study focuses on exploring the influence of "transformational leadership" (TL) on "employee retention" (ER) in the "small and-medium sized enterprises" (SMEs) by taking Job Satisfaction (JS) as mediator and communication (CM) as moderating factors. The target population is the Pakistani SME's operating in the Islamabad/Rawalpindi region and no other regions due to time limitations. For collecting data, Convenience sampling technique is utilized. A 5-point Likert scale instrument has been developed for obtaining the desired statistics. Multiple Regression method is exploited for testing of hypothesis and "Process Model Macro" is applied to gauge the mediating and the moderating influence. Findings illustrate the positive impact of TL on ER in the Pakistani SMEs. The outcomes of the study endorsed TL influence on JS. Further analysis exposed partial mediation of JS in exploring the relationship between TL and ER. Moreover, communication positively moderates the TL-JS and JS-ER relationships. The findings provide a food for thought to the Pakistani SME leaders to adopt transformational style of leadership when it comes to retaining the talent. This study adds volume to both theory and practice. Meager number of studies have been done in discovering the mediating role of JS between TL and ER especially in the Pakistani SME environment. This study is very unique in ascertaining the moderating influence of Communication on TL-JS and JS-ER axis which has not done before. In future, the impact of the exit of transformation leadership on employee retentions can also be worthy of examining.

... Firstly, although every leader demonstrates transformational and transactional behaviours to varying degrees, they can all be defined as having a dominant leadership style (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999), which influences followers' behaviour in a definite direction and magnitude. Secondly, given that OCB is an extra-role behaviour, transformational leaders who can inspire their followers to think beyond their job descriptions are more likely to support it (Rafferty & Griffin, 2004). Finally, OCB is less susceptible, because these behaviours are not explicitly acknowledged or rewarded by the formal organisational incentive structure in the context of transformational leadership (see Podsakoff et al., 2000). ...

Organisations' green human resources, production processes and other processes would be better positioned to meet the rising challenge of global warming if organisations follow an extensive environmental sustainability and behavioural norms and strategy. In so doing, this article looks at the influence of transformational leadership on employee green dedication and organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) via green dedication in two different studies from two different industries (construction and manufacturing). Study 1 aims to investigate the mediating role of green dedication in linking transformational leadership to employees' green OCB using cross‐sectional data. Study 2 used the same research model as study 1 but with the addition of a moderator (environmental attitude) to affect the impact of transformational leadership on employee green OCB through employee dedication using the time lag approach. In studies 1 and 2, we collected data in supervisor–employee dyad from construction firms and manufacturing enterprises, respectively. The findings of study 1 indicated that transformational leadership has a significant impact on employee green OCB. Green dedication was also found to significantly mediate the association between transformational leadership and employee green OCB. The findings of study 2 showed that environmental attitude moderated significantly the association between transformational leadership and green dedication. This article provides useful insights for environmental researchers, managers and policymakers to reform human resource practices to encourage green organisational citizenship behaviour at work.

P Simanjuntak

The construction project implementation team generally consists of clients, project managers, financiers, legal consultants, design leaders (architects or structural engineers), other specialized consultants, main contractors, subcontractors, cost consultants and suppliers, who must work together effectively to realize project goals. Leadership, the use of digital technology and cultural diversity characterize the effectiveness of the project implementation team. This study aims to determine the positive effects of transformational leadership, digital technology (digitization), and cultural diversity on the effectiveness of the project implementation team. This research is a survey research, involving 200 company respondents, members of the construction industry professional association in Jakarta. Multiple regression is used to analyse data. The results showed that transformational leadership, digital technology (digitization) and cultural diversity had a significant positive effect on the effectiveness of the project implementation team.

Esta investigación replica el estudio de la influencia de los estilos de liderazgo en el comportamiento innovador de cadetes peruanos de Norena-Chavez et al. (2021), en una muestra de 200 alumnos del Instituto de Educación Superior Tecnológico Público del Ejército-ETE (Lima, Perú). Se emplea la técnica de ecuaciones estructurales utilizando mínimos cuadrados parciales (PLS-SEM). Se confirmó que existe influencia de los estilos de liderazgo transformacional y transaccional sobre el comportamiento innovador de los alumnos. De acuerdo con la varianza explicada, el liderazgo transformacional explica el 47 % y el liderazgo transaccional, el 59 % de la variabilidad del comportamiento innovador. Esta investigación contribuye a mejorar la comprensión de la relación de los estilos de liderazgo y del comportamiento innovador en el ámbito militar.

The COVID-19 crisis brought numerous challenges to work life. One of the most notable may be the acceleration of digital transformation, accompanied by an intensification of e-mail usage and related demands such as high e-mail workload. While research quickly started to examine the implications of these changes for employees, another important group of stakeholders has been overlooked: leaders. We focus on leaders during the COVID-19 crisis and examine how COVID-19 related work intensification links to leaders' e-mail overload appraisal and finally exhaustion and transformational leadership, a leader behavior especially needed in times of crisis. In a five-day diary study in September 2020, 84 leaders responded to daily surveys on 343 days. Results of multilevel analysis showed that perceived COVID-19 related work intensification was positively linked to worktime spent dealing with e-mail and appraised e-mail overload. E-mail overload appraisal was positively related to leaders' exhaustion, but unrelated to their transformational behavior. Day-specific time spent dealing with e-mail, however, was negatively related to transformational leadership. E-mail overload appraisal mediated the relationship between COVID-19 related work intensification and exhaustion. Turning the focus on leaders during the COVID-19 crisis, our study has important implications for the design of work of leaders in times of crisis and beyond.

Saravanan Sathiyaseelan

Several industries recognize transformational leadership as an effective leadership style that achieves performance beyond expectations. However, transformational leadership appears less connected to discussions on leadership in higher education administration. This study reviews and examines transformational leadership and the profile of certain individuals in higher education administration from a different perspective by documenting their "lived experiences" through phenomenology. A total of fifteen leaders in higher education administration shared their "lived experiences" that offered an in-depth understanding of their profile and its association to transformational leadership.

Cross-sectional studies of attitude-behavior relationships are vulnerable to the inflation of correlations by common method variance (CMV). Here, a model is presented that allows partial correlation analysis to adjust the observed correlations for CMV contamination and determine if conclusions about the statistical and practical significance of a predictor have been influenced by the presence of CMV. This method also suggests procedures for designing questionnaires to increase the precision of this adjustment.