Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent, divergent and criterion...

8/12/2019 Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent, divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS Jens Rowold a, , Kathrin Hei

1/13

Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing theconvergent, divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS

Jens Rowold a, , Kathrin Heinitz b

a University of Mnster, Psychologisches Institut II, Fliednerstrasse 21, 48149 Mnster, Germany b Free University of Berlin, Germany

Abstract

This study aimed at empirically clarifying the similarities and differences between transformational, transactional, andcharismatic leadership. More specifically, the convergent, divergent, and criterion validity of two instruments, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) and the Conger and Kanungo Scales (CKS), was explored. It was found that transformationaland charismatic leadership showed a high convergent validity. Moreover, these leadership styles were divergent from transactionalleadership. With regard to criterion validity, subjective (e.g. satisfaction) as well as objective (profit) performance indicators wereassessed. Firstly, results indicated that transformational as well as charismatic leadership augmented the impact of transactionalleadership on subjective performance. In addition, transformational and charismatic leadership both contribute unique variance tosubjective performance, over and above the respective other leadership style. Secondly, transformational leadership had an impact on profit, over and above transactional leadership. This augmentation effect could not be confirmed for charismatic leadership.

Furthermore, transformational leadership augmented the impact of both transactional and charismatic leadership on profit.Implications for leadership theory and practice are discussed. 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Transformational leadership; Transactional leadership; Charismatic leadership; Profit

Over the last two decades a new genre of leadership theory, alternatively labeled as charismatic (Conger &Kanungo, 1998; Hunt, Boal, & Dodge, 1999; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993 ), visionary (Sashkin, 1988 ), or transformational (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bass, 1985 ), has emerged. Among these, two fields of research havegained considerable interest. First, within transformational leadership, leaders emphasize higher motive development,

and arouse followers' motivation by means of creating and representing an inspiring vision of the future ( Bass, 1997 ).Second, charismatic leadership ( Conger & Kanungo, 1998 ) describes why followers identify with their respectiveleader.

The positive effects of transformational and charismatic leadership on several organizational outcomes underscoretheir relevance ( Bass, 1998; Yammarino, Spangler, & Bass, 1993 ). While these positive effects have been proven ina wide range of applied settings ( Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, &Sivasubramaniam, 1996 ), the elementary field of research concerning the constructs of transformational and charismatic

The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 121 133www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua

Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 251 8331377; fax: +49 251 8334104. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Rowold).

1048-9843/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.01.003
mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.01.003http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.01.003mailto:[email protected]


2/13

leadership still needs further attention ( Avolio & Yammarino, 2002; Hunt & Conger, 1999; Shamir et al., 1993 ). Theurgent call for research in this area is summarized by Yukl (1999) :

One of the most important conceptual issues for transformational and charismatic leadership is the extent to whichthey are similar and compatible. [ ] The assumption of equivalence has been challenged by leadership scholars [ ]who view transformational and charismatic leadership as distinct but partially overlapping processes. (p. 298 ff.).

The instruments to assess these constructs add to the confusion about the underlying meaning of transformationaland charismatic leadership. As an example, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X; Bass & Avolio,2000), which is used to assess transformational leadership, includes five subscales of transformational leadership. Of these five, three subscales were combined into one factor called charisma in earlier versions of the instrument. In turn,the empirical leadership literature uses the terms transformational and charismatic leadership inconsistently andinterchangeably.

Following the arguments made by Yukl (1999) and other leadership researchers ( Judge, 2005 ), the present studyaimed at explicating and demonstrating the relationships of the constructs of transformational and charismaticleadership, as well as their effect on individual (subjective) and organizational (objective) outcomes. In the followingsection, we compare and contrast two widely used instruments for assessing these leadership styles, namely the

MLQ-5X and the Conger

Kanungo Scales (CKS). We focus on these instruments as they both represent elaboratedtheories and have adequate psychometric properties. We are aware, however, that other approaches to trans-formational and charismatic leadership may result in a more elaborated understanding of the subject as well ( Rafferty& Griffin, 2004 ).

1. Comparison of MLQ and CKS

1.1. Similarities

Both the MLQ and CKS belong to what has been labeled neo-charismatic leadership theories ( Antonakis &House, 2002 ). Fundamental to the theories of Bass (1985) and Conger & Kanungo (1998) is the representation andarticulation of a vision by the leader ( Sashkin, 2004 ). As a long-term attempt to change followers' attitudes, self-concepts ( House & Shamir, 1993 ) and motives, this vision is rooted in commonly-held ethics and values ( Bass &Steidlmeier, 1999 ). The ethical foundation of the vision is fundamental to both Bass' and Conger and Kanungo'stheories. Thus, they focus on socialized as opposed to personalized charisma ( Howell & Avolio, 1992 ). Socializedcharismatic leaders use their abilities to achieve benefits for all followers, and not just for their own benefit.

Both transformational and charismatic leaders are agents of change. In addition to the formulation of a vision, strongemotional ties between the leader and the led are necessary in order to change followers' belief systems and attitudes. Inaddition, if the leader is a trustworthy model and represents a code of conduct, transformation occurs more easily. As aconsequence of the leader's charismatic qualities and behaviors, followers identify with the leader. In turn, values and performance standards are more likely to be adapted by followers. Finally, transformational and charismatic leadersfoster performance beyond expectations.

These similarities between the theories proposed by Bass (1985) and by Conger & Kanungo (1998) highlight

the fact that they share at least one basic assumption (cf. Antonakis & House, 2002 ). In his original work ontransformational leadership, Bass (1985) proposed that charisma is the main component of transformational leadership.However, several important differences between these theories are clearly evident.

1.2. Differences

The main difference between the MLQ and CKS is that each is based on its own conceptualization of charismatic/ transformational leadership ( Antonakis & House, 2002; House & Shamir, 1993 ). As a consequence, these measuresinclude different sets of leadership scales. We turn to each of these instruments in the following paragraphs.

Central to the theory of Bass (1985) is the distinction between transactional and transformational leadership.Over the last two decades, empirical research resulted in several subscales for the assessment of these twomultifaceted constructs. Nine different subscales of transformational and transactional leadership are measured bythe MLQ-5X ( Avolio & Bass, 2004; Bass & Avolio, 2000 ). Whereas in the last decades the factorial validity of

122 J. Rowold, K. Heinitz / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 121 133


3/13

the MLQ-5X was under consideration ( Den Hartog & Van Muijen, 1997; Yukl, 1999 ), a recent large sample analysis(Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003 ) supported the nine-factor model of the MLQ-5X, which isdescribed in Table 1 .

Whereas the MLQ assesses leadership behavior at a single point in time, the CKS views leadership as a process over time. Thus, the two theories focus on different time frames. Conger & Kanungo (1998) developed a model of

charismatic leadership which focuses on three distinct stages of the leadership process. In the first stage, the leader assesses the environment as to growth opportunities for the respective organization (cf. Table 1 , Sensitivity to the Environment, SE ) and carefully evaluates his/her followers' needs ( Sensitivity to Members' Needs, SMN ). In stage two,the respective leader formulates a strategic vision which is constantly presented in an inspiring way ( Strategic Visionand Articulation, SVA ). Finally, in the third stage, the leader provides a role model by demonstrating Personal Risk (PR) and Unconventional Behavior (UB) to his/her followers. By means of PR and UB, the leader builds up followers'trust and commitment ( Conger, Kanungo, Menon, & Mathur, 1997 ). In sum, these five subscales form the Conger andKanungo Scale (CKS) of charismatic leadership. A combined measure of charisma will be labeled CKS-CH in the present study.

At the subscale level, additional similarities between transformational (MLQ) and charismatic (CKS) leadership can be noted (cf. Table 1 ). In both the MLQ scale IS and the CKS scale SE , the leader questions the status quo and seeks out

new ways to solve problems. Furthermore, articulating a vision and inspiring the followers are contents of both theMLQ scale IM and the CKS scale SVA. Thirdly, understanding and evaluating the followers' needs is a subject of boththe MLQ IC and the CKS SMN scales. Unique to the CKS are the subscales of PR and UB. In contrast to the MLQ, no

Table 1Comparison of the subscales of MLQ-5X and CKS

MLQ CKS

Transformational leadership Charismatic leadership

Inspirational motivation (IM). Articulation and representationof a vision; leaders' optimism and enthusiasm.

Sensitivity to the environment (SE) . The leader assesses theenvironment for growth opportunities for his/her respectiveorganization, criticizes the status quo and proposes radicalchanges in order to achieve organizational goals.

Idealized influence attributed (IIa). Instilling pride in and respect for the leader; the followers identify with the leader.

Sensitivity to members' needs (SMN) . The leader carefullyevaluates his/her followers' needs.

Idealized influence behavior (IIb). Representation of atrustworthy and energetic role model for the follower.

Strategic vision and articulation (SVA) . The leader formulatesa strategic vision for the respective organization. It is constantly presented to followers in an inspiring way.

Intellectual stimulation (IS). Followers are encouraged toquestion established ways of solving problems.

Personal risk (PR) . Presenting self-confidence, demonstrating belief in the potential outcome of the vision.

Individualized consideration (IC). Understanding the needs and abilities

of each follower; developing and empowering the individual follower.

Unconventional behavior (UB). Leaders build trust and

commitment in followers; provides a role model for followers.

Transactional leadershipContingent reward (CR). Defining the exchanges between what is

expected from the follower and what the follower will receive in return.

Active management-by-exception (AMbE). In order to maintaincurrent performance status the focus is on detecting andcorrecting errors, problems or complaints.

Management-by-exception passive (MbEP). Addressing problemsonly after they have become serious.

Nonleadership Laissez-faire (LF) . Absence of leadership behavior.



4/13


5/13

hierarchical level moderated the relationship between leadership styles and outcome criteria ( Antonakis & House, 2002;Yukl, 2002 ). In the present study, we were able to include the focal leaders' hierarchical level as one of the more important contextual conditions (cf. Lowe et al., 1996 ), as for example managerial functions and experiences may vary withhierarchical levels of the leader, likewise the experiences of the respondents ( Bass, Waldman, Avolio, & Bebb, 1987 ). Inturn, within all the regression analyses, we controlled for focal leaders' hierarchical level. Compared to transactional

leadership it was hypothesized that transformational and charismatic leadership explains additional variance in subjective(H4a) and objective (H4b) performance, whilst controlling for focal leaders' hierarchical level. Also, it was hypothesizedthat both transformational and charismatic leadership augment the impact of the respective other leadership style onsubjective (H5a) and objective (H5b) performance whilst controlling for focal leaders' hierarchical level.

4. Method

4.1. Participants

Participants were employees in a large public transport company in Germany. From a total of N =298 employees,220 responded (response rate =73.8%). These employees assessed the leadership style of their respective direct leader

(i.e. supervisor) who led one of the companys' 45 branches. At least two employees reported to their respective leader.The branches are hierarchically nested so that leaders of four hierarchical levels were rated. Seven employees (3.4%)reported to top executives, 37 (17.9%) to upper management, 88 (42.5%) to middle management, and 75 (33.8%) tofirst-level supervisors. The mean age of the participants was 40 years (SD=7.1); 73% were male.

4.2. Questionnaire design

4.2.1. Leadership styleTransformational and transactional leadership was assessed using a German translation of the MLQ 5-X ( Bass &

Avolio, 2000 ; cf. Note 1; Yammarino, Spangler, & Dubinsky, 1998 ). In contrast to earlier German translations of theMLQ-5X ( Felfe & Goihl, 2002; Geyer & Steyrer, 1998 ), this translation proved to measure the nine dimensions of transformational and transactional leadership described above with good psychometric properties ( Rowold, 2004,2005). For assessing charismatic leadership style, the Conger and Kanungo Scales (CKS; Conger & Kanungo, 1998 )were carefully translated from English to German by a professional and then backtranslated by an English nativespeaker, both experts in the field of organizational psychology ( Behling & Law, 2000 ). For each of the MLQ and CKSitems, participants rated the frequency of leaders' behavior on a 5-point rating scale (1= not at all , 5 = frequently, if not always ). The subscale values represent the unweighted means of the respective items; combined measures represent themean values of the respective subscales. In addition, participants indicated their focal leaders' hierarchical level withinthe organization, ranging from 1 ( upper management ) to 4 ( second-level supervisors ).

As we did not have any a priori expectation concerning the differential affect of the transformational or charismaticsubscales, we used combined measures that were consistent with recent empirical studies ( Avolio, Zhu, Koh, &Bhatia, 2004 ). Transformational, transactional and charismatic leadership show satisfactory -levels (see Table 3 ). Wetherefore assume that our results are based on reliable construct assessment. In order to test the factorial validity of the

leadership instruments, confirmatory factor analyses were performed. For both instruments several alternative modelsfound in prior research (cf. Antonakis et al., 2003; Conger & Kanungo, 1998 ) were tested. Several fit indices wereused to evaluate the model fit ( Medsker, Williams, & Holahan, 1994 ) and the 2 -Difference-Test was implemented tocompare rivaling factor models. Results from Table 2 demonstrate that for the MLQ-5X, the nine factor model showedthe best fit, replicating recent research ( Rowold, 2005 ). As for the CKS, the five factor model advocated by Conger and colleagues was supported. These results seem to justify the use of the two leadership instruments.

5. Performance indicators

5.1. Subjective measures

The present study included three subjective performance measures. Respondents were asked to rate their Extra Effort ( EEF ), the Effectiveness of leaders' behavior ( EFF ), and their Satisfaction (SAT ) with the respective



6/13

leader. These scales ranged from (1) very low to (5) very high and are part of the MLQ-5X ( Bass & Avolio,2000 ).

5.2. Objective measures

The participating transport company had a clearly defined system of evaluating the financial performance of the 45 branches. Prior to each year, the top management carefully defined the budget for each branch individually. This process was carried out in close collaboration with the respective branch leader and took into account parameterssuch as the size of the respective branch and its annual performance goal. At the end of each year, the gains and lossesof each branch were calculated, yielding the final financial performance. The difference between these two measures(profit) was an ideal objective performance indicator and made it easy to communicate each branch's success infinancial terms. In sum, each branch was responsible for its budget and could directly contribute to the company'sfinancial performance goals. For N = 39 branches, profit data was available from company records and standardized for further analyses.

6. Procedure

The questionnaires were administered to participants during work time; full anonymity was assured. All N = 220 participants filled out both the MLQ (which included the subjective performance criteria) and theCKS. The survey took place during the last 3 months of the same year for which the objective performancemeasures were collected.

7. Results

7.1. Convergent and divergent analysis

Using correlational analysis, we explored the relationships between transformational (TF), transactional (TA both measured with the MLQ) and charismatic leadership (as measured by the CKS, CKS-CH). TA is seen asdivergent, TF and CKS-CH as convergent leadership styles. Table 3 shows the intercorrelations of constructs(individual level, N =220).

7.1.1. Convergent validityThe high correlation between TF and CKS-CH ( r =.88, p b .01) supports convergent validity between these

constructs (hypothesis 1a).

Table 2Results of confirmatory factor analyses

2 df AIC TLI CFI RMSEA 2 df

MLQ Null-model 21701 666 21773 NA NA 0.38 20454 108

One factor modela

1797 594 2013 0.94 0.94 0.10 550 36Three factor model b 1677 591 1899 0.94 0.95 0.09 430 33Six factor model c 1350 579 1596 0.96 0.96 0.08 103 21 Nine factor model d 1247 558 1535 0.96 0.97 0.07

CKS Null-model 14509 276 14555 NA NA 0.46 13976 56One factor model a 997 230 1135 0.94 0.95 0.12 464 10Five factor model d 533 220 691 0.97 0.98 0.08

Note: a) All items load on one leadership factor; b) transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership; c) in contrast to the nine factor model, inspirational motivation and both idealized influence factors were combined into one charisma factor; d) factor model as described inTable 1 (target model); NA = not available; 2 was calculated by subtracting model 2 from that of the nine-factor (MLQ) or five-factor (CKS) model; likeways, df was calculated by subtracting model df from that of the nine-factor (MLQ) or six-factor (CKS) model;

p b .001.



7/13

7.1.2. Divergent validity

Both the correlations between TA and TF ( r =.57, pb

.01) as well as between TA and CKS-CH ( r =.52, pb

.01) werestatistically significant. Further statistical analysis was deemed necessary to check if these divergent validitycoefficients were significantly smaller than convergent validity. Meng, Rosenthal, & Rubin's (1992) approach wasutilized to test differences between dependent correlations. It was found that 1) r TF,CH N r TF,TA ( Z =1.90, p b .05) and 2)r TF,CH N r CH,TA ( Z =2.35, p b .01). Thus, divergent validity coefficients were significantly smaller than convergent validity, supporting hypothesis 1b.

8. Leadership style and performance

Table 3 reveals that all of the leadership styles were significantly associated with indicators of subjective performance. Thus, hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c were supported by the data. It should be noted that focal leaders'hierarchical level was significantly correlated with transformational and charismatic leadership style as well as the threesubjective performance indicators. Thus, higher-level leaders exhibit more of these leadership behaviors which are, inturn, associated with subjective performance. These results highlight the importance of contextual variables such asrespondents' level ( Lowe et al., 1996 ). As was stated in the introduction, we controlled for level in the regressionanalyses which will be presented next.

9. Augmentation analyses

The results reported above show that transformational and charismatic leadership are highly convergent.However, as already mentioned, the two questionnaires (MLQ and CKS) both measure facets of leadership behavior that are not part of the respective other instrument. Therefore, on the one hand, it was examined if thefacets of transformational and charismatic leadership augment transactional leadership and, on the other hand,

if they augment each other, i.e. if they explain genuine variance in subjective and objective performanceindicators.

9.1. Subjective performance

Hierarchical regression analysis was performed in order to assess the impact of the hierarchical level and different leadership styles on subjective performance indicators. Each step within these hierarchical regressions is represented bya separate row in Table 4 . Throughout the analyses, the hierarchical level was entered first into the regression. In thenext steps, we separately entered different leadership styles into the regression analysis.

The results show that, for the subjective performance indicators, transformational leadership adds between 29 and39% variance beyond that of transactional leadership (analysis #1). Also, charismatic leadership adds comparableamounts of variance (29 40%) to transactional leadership (analysis #2). Taken together, these results support hypothesis 4a.

Table 3Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and internal consistency reliabilities for key study variables at the individual level ( N =220)

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Level 3.11 0.94 2. Transactional leadership 2.90 0.48 .04 .85

3. Transformational leadership 3.35 0.65 .31 .57 .874. CKS-CH 3.26 0.69 .32 .52 .88 .875. Extra effort 3.19 0.84 .25 .45 .77 .76 .816. Effectiveness 3.56 0.76 .31 .41 .79 .81 .74 .707. Satisfaction 3.47 0.86 .31 .33 .74 .75 .65 .79 .83

Note: Level = focal leaders' hierarchical level; TA = transactional leadership; TF = transformational leadership; CKS-CH = charismatic leadership asmeasured by the Conger and Kanungo Scales, EEF = extra effort; EFF = effectiveness; SAT = satisfaction. Values along the diagonal represent internal consistency estimates (Cronbach's alpha).

p .01 (one-tailed).



8/13

Furthermore, the results show that both transformational (analysis #3) and charismatic leadership (analysis #4) addunique variance (3 5%) for subjective performance beyond that of the respective other leadership style. These resultslend support to hypothesis 5a.

9.2. Objective performance

The impact of leadership styles on profit is analyzed at the branch level. Before the data was aggregated at the branchlevel, it was tested if different subordinates attributed the same leadership styles to their mutual supervisor (i.e. branchleader). Following the recommendations made by McGraw & Wong (1996) , interrater agreement (ICC 1 and ICC2) andwithin-group agreement indices ( r wg ) were calculated ( James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984 ). Table 5 indicates that the ratershighly agreed on the three leadership scales. Consequently, leadership ratings were aggregated at the branch level.Descriptive statistics of key study variables are presented in Table 5 . As can be seen, profit is significantly correlated totransformational leadership. While this result supports hypothesis 3b, the hypotheses 3a and 3c were not supported.

With regard to the augmentation hypothesis, the analyses of objective performance paralleled the analyses of subjective performance. Hierarchical regression analyses were implemented to assess the impact of different leadershipstyles on profit, while controlling for the focal leaders' hierarchical level (cf. Table 6 ). Transformational leadershipaugmented the impact of transactional leadership on profit: 14% variance in profit is due to transformational leadership,over and above transactional leadership (analysis #1). In contrast, charismatic leadership did not augment transactional

Table 5Descriptive statistics for key study variables at the branch level ( N =39)

M SD ICC1 ICC2 Mean SD 1 2 3 4r wg r wg

1. Level 3.03 0.96 2. TA 2.89 0.37 .79 .51 .67 .95 .07 .153. TF 3.34 0.55 .93 .67 .80 .96 .06 .52 .694. CKS-CH 3.20 0.50 .94 .46 .63 .95 .07 .55 .69 .935. Profit 0.00 1.00 .21 .21 .26 .15

Note: Level = focal leaders' hierarchical level within the organization; TA = transactional leadership; TF = transformational leadership; CKS-CH =charismatic leadership as measured by the Conger and Kanungo Scales; EEF = extra effort; EFF = effectiveness; SAT = satisfaction, Profit =

(standardized) objective profit. p .05; p .01 (one-tailed).

Table 4Summary of simultaneous regression analyses (standardized Betas) for leadership styles predicting subjective measures of performance at theindividual level ( N =220)

Analysis No. Extra effort Effectiveness Satisfaction

Beta R2 R2 Beta R2 R2 Beta R2 R2

(1) Level .02 .12 .12 .06 .16 .16 .08 .08 .08TA .03 .29 .18 .04 .30 .14 .15 .17 .10TF .74 .59 .29 .79 .63 .33 .86 .57 .39

(2) Level .42 .12 .12 .08 .16 .16 .05 .08 .08TA .01 .29 .18 .01 .30 .14 .10 .17 .10CKS-CH .38 .58 .29 .78 .66 .36 .82 .58 .40

(3) Level .00 .12 .12 .04 .16 .16 .10 .08 .08TA .01 .29 .18 .07 .30 .14 .17 .17 .10TF .43 .59 .29 .38 .63 .33 .46 .57 .39CKS-CH .37 .62 .03 .49 .69 .05 .48 .62 .05

(4) Level .00 .12 .12 .04 .16 .16 .10 .08 .08TA .01 .29 .18 .07 .30 .14 .17 .17 .10CKS-CH .37 .58 .29 .49 .66 .36 .48 .58 .40TF .43 .62 .04 .38 .69 .03 .46 .62 .04

Note: Level = focal leaders' hierarchical level; TF = transformational leadership; TA = transactional leadership; CKS-CH = charismatic leadership asmeasured by the Conger and Kanungo Scales.

p .01; p .05.



9/13

leadership (analysis #2). Thus, hypothesis 4b was only partially supported. Furthermore, charismatic leadership did not augment the impact of transformational leadership on profit (analysis #3). However, transformational leadershipaugments charismatic and transactional leadership (analysis #4) and adds 11% of unique variance. These results partially confirmed hypothesis 5b. Although these results echo the results from Table 5 , where only transformationalleadership was associated with profit, we performed these analyses as only the regression analyses provide additionalinformation about the augmenting effect of certain leadership styles. The -weights, however, should not be interpreteddue to multicollinearity problems (high correlations between the leadership styles, see Table 5 ; cf. Cohen, Cohen, West,& Aiken, 2002 ). Summarizing the results for objective performance, hierarchical regression analyses show that transformational leadership augments the impact of transactional as well as charismatic leadership on profit.

10. Discussion

Although they are often compared and used interchangeably, charismatic (CKS) and transformational (MLQ)leadership have a differential focus on the leadership phenomenon and its outcomes on top of the many componentsthey share. This study provides evidence for convergent validity between transformational (MLQ) and charismatic(CKS) leadership. From the results reported in Table 3 , we estimate the shared variance between these constructs to be78%. While this supports the idea that charismatic and transformational leadership are to a larger degree overlapping,the still remaining 22% variance gives us an idea about the uniqueness of these constructs. Furthermore, analyses show

that transformational and charismatic leadership are differential to transactional leadership, which provides, on the sideof transformational leadership, further support for the divergent validity, showing that transformational leadership isnot redundant to transactional leadership. According to our analyses, the same counts for charismatic leadership asmeasured with the CKS (cf. Note 2).

However, the correlations between transactional and transformational leadership are high and significant. Whilethese results limit divergent validity of the MLQ to some extent, they replicate findings from earlier research. Drawingon large samples from diverse organizational settings, independent analyses showed that transformational andtransactional leadership are highly correlated ( Antonakis et al., 2003; Bass & Avolio, 2000 ).

With regard to criterion validity of transformational and charismatic leadership, the conducted hierarchicalregressions provide more insight into the convergence (or overlapping) of these two concepts. First of all, theaugmentation hypothesis was confirmed in this study. Transformational leadership augments transactional leadershipfor subjective as well as objective criteria. With respect to the objective criterion, our results confirm earlier results fromGeyer & Steyrer (1998) . Their results showed that transformational leadership uniquely accounts for 6% of the

Table 6Summary of simultaneous regression analysis (standardized Betas) for leader-ship styles predicting objective measures of performance at the branchlevel ( N =39)

Analysis No. Leadership style Profit

Beta R2 R2

(1) Level .52 .05 .05TA .15 .10 .06TF .63 .24 .14

(2) Level .42 .05 .05TA .01 .10 .06CKS-CH .38 .15 .05

(3) Level .47 .05 .05TA .10 .10 .06TF .92 .24 .14CKS-CH .38 .26 .02

(4) Level .47 .05 .05TA .10 .10 .06CKS-CH .38 .15 .05TF .92 .26 .11

Note: Level = focal leaders' hierarchical level; TF = transformational leadership; TA = transactional leadership; CKS-CH = charismatic leadership asmeasured by the Conger and Kanungo Scales.

p .01; p .05.



10/13


11/13


12/13

Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2002). The full-range leadership theory: The way forward. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 3 34). Amsterdam: JAI.

Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Manual and sampler set , 3rd ed. Redwood City: Mind Garden, Inc.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.

Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authenticleaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. Leadership Quarterly , 15 , 801 823.

Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2002). Reflections, closing thoughts, and future directions. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Trans- formational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 385 406).

Avolio, B. J., Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). Identifying common method variance with data collected from a single source: An unresolvedsticky issue. Journal of Management , 17 , 571 587.

Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W. L., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychologicalempowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 25 , 951 968.

Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A fieldexperiment. Journal of Applied Psychology , 81 , 827 832.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American

Psychologist , 52 , 130 139.Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military and educational impact. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). MLQ Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood City: Mind Garden.Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly , 10, 181 217.Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., Avolio, B. J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational leadership and the falling dominoes effect. Group & Organization

Studies , 12, 73 87.Behling, O., & Law, K. S. (2000). Translating questionnaires and other research instruments: Problems and solutions. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.Brown, D. J., & Keeping, L. M. (2005). Elaborating the construct of transformational leadership: The role of affect. Leadership Quarterly , 16 ,

245 272.Cohen, P., Cohen, J., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2002). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., Menon, S. T., & Mathur, P. (1997). Measuring charisma: Dimensionality and validity of the Conger-Kanungo scale of

charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences , 14, 290 302.Conway, J. M. (1996). Analysis and design of multitrait multirater performance appraisal studies. Journal of Management , 22 , 139 162.DeGroot, T., Kiker, D. S., & Cross, T. C. (2000). A meta-analysis to review organizational outcomes related to charismatic leadership.

Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences , 17 , 356 371.Den Hartog, D. N., & Van Muijen, J. J. (1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational

and Organizational Psychology , 70 , 19 34.Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. (2002). A meta-analysis of transformational and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and

satisfaction: An update and extension. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 35 66). Amsterdam: JAI.

Felfe, J., & Goihl, K. (2002). Deutsche berarbeitete und ergnzte Version des Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) [German revised andendorsed Version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)]. In A. Glckner-Rist (Ed.), ZUMA-Informationssystem. Elektronisches Handbuch sozialwissenschaftlicher Erhebungsinstrumente , 6th ed. Mannheim: Zentrum fr Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen.

Felfe, J., Tartler, K., & Liepmann, D. (2004). Advanced research in the field of transformational leadership. Zeitschrift fr Personalforschung , 18 ,262 288.

Fuller, J. B., Patterson, C. E. P., Hester, K., & Stringer, S. Y. (1996). A quantitative review of research on charismatic leadership. Psychological Reports , 78 , 271 287.

Geyer, A. L. J., & Steyrer, J. M. (1998). Transformational leadership and objective performance in banks. Applied Psychology An International Review, 47 , 397 420.

House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman(Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 167 188). San Diego: Academic Press.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation? Academy of Management Executive , 6 , 43 54.Howell, J. M., Neufeld, D. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2005). Examining the relationship of leadership and physical distance with business unit performance.

Leadership Quarterly , 16 , 273 285.Hunt, J. G., Boal, K. B., & Dodge, G. E. (1999). The effects of visionary and crisis-responsive charisma on followers: An experimental examination

of two kinds of charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly , 10 , 423 448.Hunt, J. G., & Conger, J. A. (1999). From where we sit: An assessment of transformational and charismatic leadership research. Leadership

Quarterly , 10 , 335 343.James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied

Psychology , 69 , 85 98.Judge, T. A. (2005). Psychological leadership research: The state of the art. Paper presented at the 4th Conference of the German Psychological

Association, section I/O Psychology, Bonn, Germany .



13/13

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology , 89 , 755 768.

Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence ontransformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 21 , 949 964.

Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project groups. Journal of Management , 18 ,489 501.

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 , 36 51.

Kuchinke, K. P. (1999). Leadership and culture: Work-related values and leadership styles among one company's U.S. and Germantelecommunication employees. Human Resource Development Quarterly , 10 , 135 154.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly , 7 , 385 425.

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin , 108 , 171 194.

McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods , 1, 30 46.Medsker, G. J., Williams, L. J., & Holahan, P. J. (1994). A review of current practices for evaluating causal models in organizational behavior and

human resources management research. Journal of Management , 20 , 439 464.Meng, X. L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin , 111 , 172 175.Pawar, B. S., & Eastman, K. K. (1997). The nature and implications of contextual influences on transformational leadership: A conceptual

examination. Academy of Management Review , 22 , 80 109.Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of

employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management , 22, 259 298.Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. Leadership Quarterly , 15,

329 354.Rowold, J. (2004). MLQ-5X. German translation of bass and Avolio's multifactor leadership. Questionnaire Redwood City: Mind Garden.Rowold, J. (2005). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Psychometric properties of the German translation by Jens Rowold. Redwood City: Mind

Garden.Sashkin, M. (1988). The visionary leader. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational

effectiveness (pp. 98 124). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Sashkin, M. (2004). Transformational leadership approaches. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership

(pp. 171 196). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization

Science , 4, 577 594.Tosi, H. L., Misangyi, V. F., Fanelli, A., Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (2004). CEO charisma, compensation, and firm performance.

Leadership Quarterly , 15, 405 420.Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Adding to contingent-reward behavior The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership.

Group & Organization Studies , 15 , 381 394.Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Bass, B. M. (1993). Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation. Leadership

Quarterly , 4(1), 81 102.Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1998). Transformational and contingent reward leadership: Individual, dyad, and group levels

of analysis. Leadership Quarterly , 9, 27 54.Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly , 10,

285 305.Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations , 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.


Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent, divergent and criterion...

Documents

Transcript of Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent, divergent and criterion...