Transformational Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels in UK Manufacturing Organizations
Transformational Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels in UK Manufacturing Organizations
Manufacturing Organizations
Gareth Edwards
Biography - Gareth is a Senior Lecturer in Organisation Studies at Bristol Business School. His
current interests are in the application of ideas on aesthetics and leadership, community and dispersed
theories of leadership. Before entering academia Gareth spent twelve years working for a leadership
Roger Gill
Biography – Roger is Visiting Professor of Leadership Studies at Durham Business School and an
independent consultant in leadership and leadership development. He has held a full-time chair in
organizational behaviour and HRM and a subsequent visiting professorship in leadership studies at the
University of Strathclyde Business School in Scotland, with responsibility for executive education,
established and directed the Research Centre for Leadership Studies at The Leadership Trust, run his
own HR management consulting firm in Singapore and Southeast Asia, and held senior appointments
Manufacturing Organizations
Purpose
UK. The aim was to develop a framework of leadership across hierarchical levels that would
Design/methodology/approach
Questionnaire. Multiple responses – self, superior, subordinate and peer ratings – were
obtained for 367 managers of whom 15% were female and 85% male, aged between 21 and
367 subjects, unanimous (cases were used only if all ratings agreed on the hierarchical level
of the subject) opinions on hierarchical level were gained for 215 (58%), which includes 30
managers. Data concerning time span was also obtained for 253 managers.
Findings
The findings of the research show a distinct pattern of behaviours across different hierarchical
2
hierarchical levels in organizations but effective at levels lower down. Laissez-faire
Originality/value
was developed from the findings. This framework can be used as a basis for leadership
organisation contexts.
1. Introduction
The literature regarding leadership has recently witnessed a shift toward studying leadership
in context (Antonakis, Avolio, and Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Fairhurst, 2009; Fry and Kriger;
2009; Liden and Antonakis, 2009; Pawar and Eastman, 1997; Porter and McLaughlin, 2006)
transformational leadership have responded and have started to shift focus towards
identifying and understanding contextual and organizational variables (Zhu, Avolio and
Walumbwa, 2009). This paper contributes to this shift in focus by exploring the contextual
reports a framework of these leadership behaviours across five hierarchical levels in UK-
based manufacturing organizations. This paper adds to knowledge in the area of hierarchical
levels in a UK context, which has not been investigated to date. The paper also explores a
3
higher number of organisational levels than previous research and gathers data from a broader
number of rating sources, then previous research – self, superior, subordinate and peer.
processes across hierarchical levels (Antonakis, Avolio, and Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Collins,
2005; Den Hartog, House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla, and Dorfman, 1999; Dubin, 1979;
Grint, 1997; Hunt, 1991; Hunt, Osborn, and Boal, 2009; Mumford, Campion, and Morgeson,
2007; Rowe, 2001; Saskin, 1988; Stogdill, 1974; Waldman and Yammarino, 1999; and
Zaccaro, 2001). One ‘macro’ perspective (Dubin, 1979) has contrasted ‘leadership of
Rowe (2001). A recent paper adds weight to these distinctions (Hunt et al., 2009) highlighting
an important role of managerial leadership just below the strategic apex (director-level) in
organizations. This paper investigates these distinctions in a UK setting through the lens of
There have been a number of studies that have investigated transformational leadership
Avolio, and Bebb, 1987; Bruch and Walter, 2007; Densten, 2003; Lowe, Kroeck, and
Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Oshagbemi and Gill, 2004; Stordeur, Vandenberghe, and D’hoore,
2000; Yammarino and Bass, 1990; Yokochi, 1989). Results within this body of research,
however, have been varied. There are also areas that need further investigation, for example;
4
only four of these studies have investigated the relative effectiveness of transformational and
transactional leadership at differing levels (Bruch, and Walter, 2007; Densten, 2003; Lowe et
al., 1996; Stordeur et al., 2000), none of which have been within the UK. Further research,
across hierarchical levels it is worth reviewing the general research regarding the
effectiveness of these behaviours. For example, recent research in 72 U.S. Army platoons
found that both active transactional and transformational leadership behaviours are positively
correlated with potency, cohesion and performance (Bass, Avolio, Jung, and Berson 2003).
Previous research supports this finding, suggesting that the most effective leaders typically
display both transformational and transactional leadership (Avolio and Bass, 1998; Avolio,
Bass, and Jung, 1999; Bass and Avolio, 1993; Curphy, 1992; Hater and Bass, 1988; Howell
and Avolio, 1993; Kane and Tremble, 1998). In addition, it has been suggested that effective
(Bass, 1985, 1998; Bass and Riggio, 2006). The effectiveness of transformational leadership,
manufacturing organisations.
‘upper’ versus ‘lower’ levels) (Bass, et al., 1987; Bruch and Walter, 2007; Lowe, et al., 1996;
Stordeur, Vandenberghe, and D’hoore, 2000; Yammarino and Bass, 1990; Yokochi, 1989),
5
two have studied three levels (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2003; Oshagbemi and
Gill, 2004) and only one has studied four levels in organizations (Densten, 2003). This
research broadens the scope of previous research provides a more detailed examination of
differing management levels by exploring five levels in organisations – top, director, senior,
In addition, Densten (2003) used Stratified-systems theory (Jacobs and Jaques, 1987; Jaques,
1976, 1989, 1990; Jaques and Clement, 1991) (SST) as the framework to record the
frequency of leadership behaviours (as described in the FRL model) of 480 senior police
officers in Australia. Stratified-systems theory (Jacobs and Jaques, 1987; Jaques, 1976, 1989,
1990; Jaques and Clement, 1991) is a prescriptive model of organisational structure based on
defining hierarchical level according to the complexity of work at each level. The model
therefore is a useful addition to the already existing research literature concerning the FRL
model and hierarchical level that we review below. SST suggests a model of organisational
organisational levels. The increasing task complexity is a function of the uncertainties created
by the necessity to deal with a more encompassing and a more turbulent environment further
up the organisational hierarchy (Hunt, 1991). The model shows seven levels within
organisations grouped into three domains: systems, organisational, and direct leadership. The
grouping is based on a measure of task complexity at each level termed ‘time span of
discretion’. Time span is defined as the maximum time for a manager at a given hierarchical
level to complete critical tasks (Hunt, 1991) (see Table 1). This model is also considered in
6
In summary, the objective of the research was to investigate the effectiveness of
organizations in a UK context and to develop a working model based on the findings of the
research. This has not been done to date in the UK and therefore would be deemed a new
contribution to our understanding of a well known theory. Indeed, the applicability of the Full
Range Leadership Model’s description of transformational leadership has, in the past, been
2001). This research, therefore, hopes to add to the investigation of this form of leadership
3. Method
7
The meaning of ‘organizational level’ and how it should be measured have been cited as
Fiedler, 1968). Cognitive theories of organization (Weick and Bougon, 2001) need to
ratings arguably the most rigorous method. This is because management, hierarchy
and even organization have been theorised as being construed through cognitive maps
(Weick and Bougon, 2001). It seems, therefore, that the true nature of a hierarchy is
what people perceive it to be. Unanimous opinion of ratings was chosen as the
preferred method of defining hierarchical level as it was deemed the most rigorous.
used two methods to define hierarchical level: job or vocation title or rank and the
manager’s own perception. Using job title or rank as a method of defining hierarchical
level seems adequate for structured organizations such as the military. An alternative
method, however, is needed for organizations where positions or ranks are more
ambiguous or unclear and, therefore, less comparable between organizations. The use
cognitive maps implies that a consensus opinion would be more accurate. In addition,
data on Stratified-systems theory (SST) was also collected (Jacobs and Jaques, 1987;
3.2 Design
The study used a between-groups design with 11 dependent variables. These variables were -
Attributed charisma (AC), Idealized influence (II), Inspirational motivation (IM), Intellectual
composite of the preceding five variables), Contingent reward (CR), Active management-by-
8
exception (MBEA), Passive management-by-exception (MBEP), Transactional leadership
(TAL) – a composite of the preceding three variables, Laissez-faire leadership (LF). There
were also three outcome variables - Follower satisfaction (SAT), Leadership effectiveness
(EFF), Level of extra effort by followers (EE). All of these variables reflected scales in the
MLQ.
A 360-degree method was used, with four categories of rating – self-rating, peer rating,
superior rating, and subordinate rating. There is general agreement among academic
researchers that there is greater congruence between other-ratings (e.g. superior and
subordinate ratings, peer and superior ratings, etc.) than between self-ratings and other-
ratings (e.g. self-ratings and superior ratings, self-ratings and peer ratings, etc.) (Furnham and
Stringfield, 1994, 1998; Harris and Schaubroeck, 1988; Holzbach, 1978). There is also
general agreement among empirical research findings that self-ratings are consistently higher
than other-ratings. These significant differences are attributed to leniency or halo effects
(Furnham and Stringfield, 1998; Harris and Schaubroeck, 1988; Kruger and Dunning, 1999).
Indeed, some researchers suggest the risk of bias from self-ratings is over-estimated
(Crampton and Wagner, 1994; Saville et al., 1996; Schwarz, 1999; Spector, 1994). Saville et
al. (1996) have demonstrated how self-report personality scales show predictable, significant,
and substantial correlations with criteria of management job success. Furthmore, Hough et al.
(1990) suggest that response distortion due to social desirability does not appear significantly
inclusive view of leadership (Borman, 1991; Mount and Scullen, 2001; Tornow, 1993).
Therefore, the decision was made to include self-ratings in the analysis, but to test whether
9
There were two independent variables: hierarchical level as judged by unanimous opinion
(cases were used only if all ratings agreed on the hierarchical level of the subject) and time
span. Five categories of hierarchical level were identified - Top-level management (e.g.
finance director, operations director and other directors), Senior management (e.g. general
manager, site manager), Middle management (e.g. production manager, sales manager),
Lower management (e.g. supervisor, team leader). The second independent variable was time
span of the manager’s role (as viewed by the manager him/herself). Four categories were
identified in line with SST (Jacobs and Jaques, 1987; Jaques, 1976, 1989, 1990; Jaques and
Clement, 1991). These were ‘up to three months’ (Stratum I), ‘three months to one year’
(Stratum II), ‘one to two years’ (Stratum III), and ‘two to five years’ (Stratum IV). No data
It was reasoned that the use of a quantitative methodology was beneficial for this piece
of research. Firstly, it would enable comparison with previous research. Secondly, it would
enable replication in future research initiatives. Indeed, the literature highlights the
importance of replication studies (Hubbard and Ryan, 2000): most researchers see replication
studies as providing genuine scientific knowledge. It is also suggested that ‘replication with
extension’, which modifies aspects of the original research design, is a highly suitable means
for knowledge creation (Hubbard and Ryan, 2000; Rosenthal and Rosnow, 1984).
3.3 Sample
The original sample consisted of 432 managers. Multiple responses were gained for 367
managers of whom 15% were female and 85% male, aged between 21 and 62 years (mean =
10
42 years), from 38 organizations in the UK manufacturing sector. Manufacturing
solely-UK sample was used to control for national culture variance (Bass, 1998). The
organizations were of varying sizes, ranging from five to 3,000 employees (mean = 285
employees) and £0.2 million to £220 million turnover (mean = £27 million).
Of the 367 subjects, unanimous opinions on hierarchical level were gained for 215 (58%), of
managers, 43 were middle managers and 55 were lower managers (see table 2 for a
breakdown of ratings by hierarchical level). Multiple MLQ ratings (self, peer, superior and
subordinate) data concerning time span was obtained for 253 managers, of whom 56 reported
a time span of up to three months, 53 a time span of three months to one year, 79 a time span
of one to two years, and 49 a time span of two to five years (see table 3 for a breakdown of
ratings by time span). There are some ‘rules of thumb’ cited in the literature for determining
sample size (Roscoe, 1975). Firstly, sample sizes of 30 to 500 are deemed appropriate for
quantitative empirical research. Secondly, where samples are to be divided into sub-samples,
a minimum sub-sample size of 30 for each category is deemed necessary (Sekaran, 2003).
3.4 Materials
Questionnaire, Form 5X-short (Bass and Avolio, 1997) with both self-rating and other–rating
11
forms) and demographic sheets for all raters. This version of the MLQ is a 45-item
questionnaire with a five-point Likert-type scale for rating the frequency of use of leadership
behaviours associated with the scales that constitute the dimensions of transformational,
transactional and laissez-faire leadership (see Table 2). The rating scale has the following
= ‘frequently, if not always’. The first 34 items measure leadership behaviour and the
remaining 11 items measure leader effectiveness (e.g.,, “leads a group that is effective”,
satisfaction with the leader and his or her methods, e.g.,, “uses methods of leadership that are
satisfying”, and the extra effort provided by followers, e.g.,, “increases others willingness to
try harder”).
As the study was a replication-with-extension, the MLQ was used for the research. There are,
however, concerns about the lack of supporting evidence for the factor model of
transformational leadership represented by the MLQ that have led some researchers to
suggest alternative factor models (Bycio, Hackett, and Allen, 1995; Carless, 1998; Deluga
and Souza, 1991; Den Hartog, Van Muijen, and Koopman, 1997; Hinkin and Schriesheim,
2008a; Hinkin and Tracy, 1999; Howell and Avolio, 1993; Kantse, et al., 2007; Koh, 1990;
Lievens, Van Geit, and Coetsier, 1997; Rafferty and Griffin, 2004; Tepper and Percy, 1994;
Yammarino and Dubinski, 1994). Although there are criticisms of the MLQ it has been
suggested that they do not necessarily detract from the theory of transformational and
transactional leadership (Avolio and Bass, 1993; Hinkin and Tracey, 1999). Indeed, past
independent meta-analyses (Gasper, 1992; Lowe et al., 1996; Patterson, Fuller, Kester, and
Stringer, 1995) have confirmed that the MLQ can be regarded as providing a satisfactory
model for assessing transformational leadership. In addition, a recent review has identified 14
studies that generated conflicting claims regarding the factor structure of the MLQ and the
12
number of factors that best represent the model (Antonakis et al., 2003). Taking differing
contextual considerations into account, however, a recent analysis of the MLQ concluded
that, firstly, the nine-factor model best represented the factor structure underlying the MLQ
(Form 5X) instrument. Secondly, the results of this research suggested that the MLQ can be
satisfactorily used to measure Full Range Leadership in relation to its underlying theory.
Lastly, research has indicated that it is premature to collapse factors in this model before
exploring the context in which the survey ratings are collected (Antonakis et al., 2003). Since
this time, however, there have been further criticisms of the MLQ suggesting the theory for
2008b). Furthermore there has also been criticism of the items that constitute the MLQ,
which have been seen to be too ambiguous with respect to level of analysis, i.e. it is unclear
whether they are measuring at an individual, group or organisational level (Schriesheim et al.,
2009).
Given the debate above an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the
current data set and is reported in a separate paper (Author 1, et al., under review). This
analysis suggested a slightly different variant of the MLQ model which comprises: active
based on the exploratory factor analysis. This model has been found in a previous study of
nurses in Finland (Kantse, et al., 2007). The analysis conducted by Author 1, et al., however,
also provides support for the nine factor model in confirmatory factor analysis (Chi² =
2,103.583, DF = 558, CFI = 0.901, TLI = 0.888, RMEA = 0.047) (Author 1, et al., under
review). As the study was a replication-with-extension into the UK context, the full nine
13
3.5 Procedure
Organizations were approached via electronic mail to seek agreement for the participation of
assessment of leadership in their organization) was explained. Agreement to take part in the
research was obtained, and a company representative (to receive the questionnaires) was
chosen by the contact person in the company. The questionnaires were mailed in sealed
envelopes to company representatives, who then distributed the sealed envelopes to the
participants in the study. The questionnaires were therefore of an ‘administered’ nature, which
is important to highlight (Baruch 1999, Baruch and Holtom, 2008). The completed
forwarded to the research co-ordinator in a pre-paid envelope. Data were collated and
The study used mean values of the multiple responses (ratings by self, peer, superior and
subordinate) for analysis purposes. Previous research using multiple responses also used the
mean score for all individuals who responded to questionnaires as the measure for each scale
(Atwater and Yammarino, 1992; Hegarty, 1974; Shipper and Davy, 2002). We do
the same basis for individual responses (self, peer, subordinate and superior) (e.g. Atwater, et
al., 1998). Results of this analysis and similarities and differences are discussed later in the
paper. Correlation Coefficients (Pearson’s r) were calculated to test for relationships between
faire - and independent variables. More detailed multiple regression analysis was also
14
performed for hierarchical level and time span to investigate the impact of independent
variables (extra effort, effectiveness and satisfaction) for all dependent variables. Hierarchical
regression analysis was also performed to investigate the relative impact of other variables
that may have impacted the results – organization size and rating source.
4. Results
The dependent variable ‘transformational leadership’ failed the goodness-of-fit test. The
results of non-parametric test alternatives (Spearman’s ) was therefore reported for this
variable. The descriptive statistics for each dependent variable and the coefficients of
correlation between dependent variables and the outcome variables – ‘extra effort’,
‘leadership effectiveness’ and ‘follower satisfaction’ – were tabulated (see Tables 4, 5 and 6).
Multiple regression analysis was also performed to investigate predictors (taken from the
independent variable list) of dependent variables (extra effort, effectiveness and satisfaction)
for each category variable level. To ensure an adequate sample size of around 45 (five
observations for each independent variable) (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black, 1998) the
top-level manager category was merged with the director-level category. The results of the
multiple regression analysis are presented in Tables 7 and 8. The table reports standardised
15
betas (β) along with the adjusted regression coefficient (∆ R²) and F ratio. Regression
The results of the hierarchical regression analyses are presented in table 9 and show that the
category variable hierarchical level and the variable rating have the strongest moderating
effect on independent and dependent variables. The results of the regression analyses show
the variable ‘organizational size’ had no moderating effect on independent and dependent
variables. Owing to the strong moderating effect of the variable ‘rating’ the independent and
dependent variables were subjected to further analysis by the original category variables
(hierarchical level and time span) split by each rating category (self, peer, superior and
between these perspectives and the results obtained with the aggregated data set is available
5. Discussion
The findings of the research show a distinct pattern of behaviours across different hierarchical
16
uppermost hierarchical levels in organizations but effective at levels lower down. Laissez-
behaviours across hierarchical levels in organizations was developed from the findings (see
figure 1).
With regards to comparing hierarchical level and time span there is similarity in results for
time spans. The results concerning extra effort, effectiveness and satisfaction of transactional
leadership, however, show little similarity between category variables. For example,
level managers, conducive to extra effort, effective and satisfying when exhibited by middle-
level managers, and effective and satisfying when exhibited by lower-level managers; but in
comparison it appears to be conducive to extra effort, effective and satisfying only at the
highest time spans. Again this may have been due to the time spans used in the research being
related more to senior-level, middle-level and lower-level managers than to director-level and
top-level managers.
managers, yet it was not inhibitory when exhibited by managers working to time spans of up
to three months. The results, however, were the same for both category variables for
17
The results concerning individual responses (self, peer, superior and subordinate), highlighted
in Figure 2, show similar results, especially for subordinate and self ratings. Peer and superior
ratings appear to have differing view, especially in the case of superior ratings in which they
have almost the opposite view. This is reminiscent of the suggestion that aspects of behaviour
Colvin, 2001; Ilgen and Feldman, 1983; Salam, Cox, and Sims, 1997). For example, Alimo-
Metcalfe (1996) suggests that superiors tend to focus on technical managerial skills, such as
decision making and problem solving, whereas subordinates are more concerned with
With regards to the constituent factors of transformational and transactional leadership, the
more detailed analysis given by the regression analysis shows a slightly different, more
confusing picture of effective and ineffective behaviours at differing levels. Similar to the
findings of Bruch and Walter (2007) idealised influence and inspirational motivation were
found to be ineffective at lower levels of organisations (hierarchical level and time span) in
the study. With regards to the transactional leadership behaviours (contingent reward and
satisfaction at lower and middle levels and middle to lower time spans, with the exception of
contingent reward being effective at top and director level. Also individualised consideration
appears to be the most widespread behaviour, being satisfying at all organisational levels
measured. Also of interest were the nuances of intellectual stimulation being conducive to
18
extra effort at top and director-level, inspirational motivation and individualised consideration
being conducive to extra effort at senior levels and attributed charisma and intellectual
stimulation being conducive to extra effort at middle levels. Interestingly, no behaviours were
found to be conducive to extra effort at lower levels (except attributed charisma for the lower
time spans). This may suggest that transformational leadership may not be achieving
performance beyond normal expectations by changing how people feel about themselves and
what is possible and by raising their motivation to new heights (c.f. Bass, 1985) at lower
levels of organisations. And indeed, this may only be the case for certain behaviours at certain
levels in organisations.
and increased effectiveness of active transactional leadership behaviours at middle and lower
levels compared with higher levels in the organizational hierarchy. This may be due, as was
suggested earlier, to managers at lower levels being more oriented towards a steady workflow
managers, in comparison, focus more on change and on the creation and communication of
new organizational policies (Katz and Kahn, 1966, 1978; Selznick, 1957). Indeed, a recent
study (Stewart and Johnson, 2009), suggests that as teams become increasingly diverse, as
would happen as a manager rises in the organization hierarchy, leadership may need to adapt
approaches that successfully manage interpersonal relationships and clearly establish roles to
ensure effective performance. This could mark the shift from transactional to
Furthermore, the results of this research provide evidence to challenge previous findings
concerning the proposition that effective leaders typically display both transformational and
19
transactional leadership behaviours (Avolio and Bass, 1998; Avolio et al., 1999; Bass and
Avolio, 1993; Hater and Bass, 1998; Howell and Avolio, 1993). It appears that only senior,
middle and lower level managers are effective when displaying both transactional and
transformational leadership behaviours. Our research also supports concerns about the
generalizability of the Full-Range Leadership model (Bryman, 1992; Gill, 2006). It implies
organizations (Antonakis, et al., 2003; Den Hartog, et al., 1999; Grint, 1997; Hunt, 1991;
Saskin, 1988; Waldman and Yammarino, 1999; Zaccaro, 2001). Our findings, however, do
(Bass, 1985; 1998; Bass and Riggio, 2006). Our results go further by illustrating that this
The framework reported in this paper reflects the more macro distinctions of leadership
discussed earlier in the paper (Dubin, 1979; Rowe, 2001). The findings also support the
suggestion made by Hunt et al. (2009) that the role of the managerial level just below the
strategic apex is critical. From the perspective of this research this is highlighted by a shift
leadership requirements. The distinction found in this paper also reflects similar distinctions
made in the self-monitoring and effective leadership literature (Caligiuri and Day, 2000;
Sosik, Jung, and Dinger, 2009). There is a caveat attached to these summary comments,
however, as when behaviour is investigated at the more distinct level of constituent factors
the picture becomes much more specific to various organisational levels. There appears to be
20
6. Implications for Leadership Development
The results of our research highlight the need for the development of transformational
suggest that lower, middle and senior level managers (and potential managers) still require
leadership behaviours. This form of leadership development needs to reflect the key
for actively monitoring progress and taking corrective action as necessary. This reflects
programmes on the market (e.g. Edwards et al. 2002) where task orientation as well as
relationship building is seen as important in developing leadership ability and capacity. This
leadership and inter-relational aspects of leadership but without forgetting how managers and
leaders frame tasks and what is seen as a successful outcome for groups. The essence of
(Edwards et al. 2002). In addition, higher-level managers, on the other hand, need
to the use of more constructive transactional leadership behaviour – contingent reward – and
The ‘Full-Range Leadership’ model has previously been hailed as ‘the leadership
development solution for all managers’ regardless of organizational and national boundaries
(Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1997). Indeed, the ‘Full-Range Leadership’ Programme (FRLP), which
21
applications (Avolio and Bass 1994; 1998; Barling et al., 1996; Bass, 1998; Crookall, 1989;
Dvir 1998). These improvements, however, tend to be accompanied by a reduction in the use
This study has shown that a reduction in the use of management-by-exception (active),
therefore, may be detrimental at certain levels in organisations. The study has provided
evidence to suggest that the Full-Range Leadership Programme may need to be altered to
accommodate the need for the development of transactional leadership, especially active
exception (Bass and Avolio, 1990; 1994) may not be suitable for all managers if there is a
Firstly, there are concerns regarding the ‘effectiveness’ scales used in the MLQ (extra effort,
effectiveness and satisfaction). Indeed within this data analysis it is recognised that it may
(extra effort, effectiveness and satisfaction). Items in this scale may be influenced by implicit
leadership theories (Lord, Foti, and De Vader, 1984; Meindl, 1990) or by halo effect. Using
the MLQ may, as a consequence, have exaggerated the importance of a leader’s behaviour
and removed attention from important interpersonal and situational factors (Pittenger, 2001).
More explicit effectiveness scales and other forms of effectiveness (e.g., financial targets,
goal accomplishment, etc.) therefore need to be used and analysed. The measures of
22
performance) and could also contribute to common method variance. In addition, the
categorization of hierarchical level (e.g., senior, middle and lower) may mean different things
in different organizations (Hunt, 1991) and in previous research. Qualitative analysis of the
meaning of particular hierarchical levels such as lower, middle and senior across different
organizations is therefore recommended. Lastly, there are variables that might affect results in
the data analysis which have not been considered, such as gender, age, functional or
departmental background etc. Further analysis will consider such variables in relation to
8. Conclusions
The results of the research suggest a distinct pattern in the use and effectiveness of
lower levels, and the effectiveness of transactional leadership is decreased both above and
transactional leadership, and the use and ineffectiveness of laissez-faire leadership are
We provide a working model based on this pattern. Evidence to support the model exists in
previous research and theory. The model is supported by theory in that transformational
leadership is more prevalent at upper levels than at lower levels, and transactional leadership
is more effective at middle and lower levels than at upper levels. The findings support general
distinctions made in the leadership literature of (Dubin, 1979; Hunt et al., 2009; Rowe, 2001).
23
The findings also add to knowledge in the area of leadership by providing new data and
leadership across hierarchical levels. Our research has also provided a more comprehensive
investigation in this area by addressing five hierarchical levels and data from multiple
Finally, we provide evidence to challenge previous findings that effective leaders typically
display both transformational and transactional leadership behaviours. Only senior, middle
and lower-level managers are effective when displaying both transactional and
transformational leadership behaviours. There is evidence also to support concerns about the
leadership in general across hierarchical levels in organizations. We have suggested how the
Full-Range Leadership programme, reflecting the findings, may be modified to better suit the
9. References
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1996), “The feedback revolution”, Health Services Journal, 13 June, pp.
26-28.
24
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, R.J. (2001), “The development of a new
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B.J. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003), “Context and leadership: An
Atwater, L. E., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F. J. and Fleenor, J., W. (1998), “Self-other
Atwater, L.E. and Yammarino, F.J. (1992), “Does self-other agreement on leadership
Author 1, Schyns, B., Higgs, M., and Author 2. (Under Review), “The MLQ factor structure
Avolio, B.J. (1999), Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations,
Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1993), Cross generations: A full range leadership development
Avolio, B.J. & Bass, B.M. (1994), Evaluation of the Impact of Transformational Leadership
Training at Individual, Group, Organizational and Community Levels, (Final report to the
25
Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1998), “You can drag a horse to water, but you can’t make it
drink except when it’s thirsty”, Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 5, pp. 1-17.
Avolio, B.J., Bass B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999), “Re-examining the components of
441-462.
Barling, J., Weber, T. & Kelloway, K.E. (1996), “Effects of transformational leadership
Baruch, Y., and Holtom, B.C. (2008), “Survey response rate levels and trends in
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and performance beyond expectations, New York: The Free
Press.
Bass, B.M. (1998), Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact,
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1990), “Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), “Transformational leadership: A response to critiques”, in
Chemers, M.M. and Ayman. R. (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and
26
Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1994), “Introduction”, in Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (Eds.),
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1997), Full range leadership development: Manual for the
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I. and Berson, Y. (2003), “Predicting unit performance by
Bass, B.M., and Riggio, R. (2006), Transformational leadership, second edition, Mahwah,
Bass, B.M., Waldman, D.A., Avolio, B.J. and Bebb, M. (1987), “Transformational leadership
and the falling dominoes effect”, Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 12, pp. 73-87.
Borman, W. C. (1991), Job behaviour, performance, and effectiveness. In M.D. Dunnette and
L.M. Hough (Eds.). Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, (Vol.2, pp.
Bradley, G.W. (1978), “Self-serving bias in the attribution process: A re-examination of the
fact of fiction question”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 36, pp. 56-71.
Bruch, H., and Walter, F. (2007), “Leadership in context: Investigating hierarchical impacts
27
Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D. and Allen, J.S. (1995), ”Further assessments of Bass’s (1985)
Caligiuri, P.M., and Day, D.V. (2000), “Effects of self-monitoring on technical, contextual,
Collins, J. (2005), “Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve”,
Colvin, R.E. (2001), Leading from the middle: A challenge for middle managers, Paper
presented at the Festschrift for Bernard Bass, SUNY Binghamton, Center for Leadership
Studies, June.
Crampton, S.M. and Wagner III, J.A. (1994), “Percept-percept inflation in micro-
Ontario.
Curphy, G.J. (1992), “An empirical investigation of the effects of transformational and
K.E., Clark, M.B. and Campbell D.R. (Eds.), Impact of leadership, Greensboro, NC: The
28
Deluga, R., and Souza, J. (1991), “The effects of transformational and transactional styles on
Den Hartog, D.N., House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A. and Dorfman, P.W.
(1999), “Culture specific and cross-cultural generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are
Den Hartog, D.N., Van Muijen, J.J. and Koopman, P.L. (1997), “Transactional versus
Densten, I.L. (2003), “Senior Police Leadership: Does Rank Matter?”, Policing: An
International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, Vol. 26, pp. 400-418.
Dubin, R. (1979), “Metaphors of leadership: An overview”, in Hunt, J.G. and Larson L.L.
(Eds.), Cross currents in leadership, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press,
pp. 225-238.
and performance: A field experiment, Doctoral dissertation, Tel Aviv University, Ramat,
Aviv, Israel.
Edwards, G.P., Winter, P.K. and Bailey, J. (2002), Leadership in Management. Ross-on-Wye:
Fry, L., and Kriger, M. (2009), “Towards a theory of being-centered leadership: Multiple
levels of being as context for effective leadership”, Human Relations, Vol. 62, pp. 1667-
1696.
29
Furnham, A. and Stringfield. P. (1994), “Congruence of self and subordinate ratings of
360-degree feedback examining self, manager, peers, and consultant ratings.” Human
Goldberg, C., Riordan, C.M., and Zhang, L. (2008), “Employees’ perceptions of their leaders:
Is being similar always better?”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 33, pp. 330-
355.
Grint, K. (1997), Fuzzy management: Contemporary ideas and practices at work, Oxford:
Hair Jr, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L., and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data
Hater, J.J., and Bass, B.M. (1988), ”Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of
transformational and transactional leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73, pp.
695-702.
Hegarty, W.H. (1974), “Using subordinate ratings to elicit behavioral changes in supervisors”,
30
Hinkin, T.R. and Schriesheim, C.A. (2008a), “An examination of ‘Nonleadership’: From
Hinkin, T.R. and Schriesheim, C.A. (2008b), “A theoretical and empirical examination of the
Hinkin, T.R. and Tracy, J.B. (1999), “The relevance of charisma for transformational
Holzbach, R. (1978), “Rater bias in performance rating: Supervisor, self and peer ratings.”
Hough, L, ; Eaton, N.K.; Dunnette, M.D.; Kemp, J.D. and McCloy, R.A. (1990), “Criterion-
related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those
Howell, J.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), “Predicting consolidated unit performance: Leadership
behavior, locus of control, and support for innovation”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Hubbard, R. and Ryan, P.A. (2000), “The historical growth of statistical significance testing
Hunt, J.G. (1991), Leadership: A new synthesis, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hunt, J.G., Osborn, R.N., and Boal, K.B. (2009), “The architecture of managerial leadership:
pp. 503-516.
31
Ilgen, D.R. and Feldman, J.M. (1983), “Performance appraisal: A process focus”, in
Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour, Greenwich,
Jacobs, T.O. and Jaques, E. (1987), Leadership in complex systems. In J.A. Zeidner (Ed.).
Jaques, E. (1990), ‘In praise of hierarchy’, Harvard Business Review, 68, 127-133.
Jaques, E. and Clement, S.D. (1991), Executive Leadership: A Practical Guide to Managing
Kane, T.D. and Tremble, T.R. Jr. (1998), Transformational leadership effects at different
levels of the army, Unpublished manuscript, U.S. Army Research Institute for the
Kanste, O., Miettunen, J., and Kyngäs, H. (2007), ”Psychometric properties of the
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1966), The social psychology of organizations, New York: John
Wiley.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1978), The social psychology of organizations, second edition, New
Kruger, J., and Dunning, D. (1999), “Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in
32
Liden, R.C., and Antonakis, J. (2009), “Considering context in psychological leadership
Lievens, F., Van Geit, P. and Coetsier, P. (1997), “Identification of transformational leadership
Lord, R.G., Foti, R.J. and De Vader, C.L. (1984), ”A test of leadership categorisation theory:
transformational and transactional leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7, pp. 385-
425.
B.M. and Cummings L.L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Greenwich, CT:
Mount, M.K. and Scullen, S.E. (2001), Multi-source feedback ratings: What do they really
Mumford, T.V.; Campion, M.A., and Morgeson, F.P. (2007), “The leadership skills
requirements across organizational levels”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18, pp. 154-
166.
Nealey, S.M., and Fiedler, F.E. (1968), “Leadership functions of middle managers”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 70, Issue 5, pp. 313-329.
Oshagbemi, T. and Gill, R.W.T. (2004), “Differences in leadership styles and behavior across
33
Patterson, C., Fuller, J.B., Kester, K. and Stringer, D.Y. (1995), A Meta-analytic examination
of leadership style and selected compliance outcomes, Paper presented to the Society for
Pawar, B.S. and Eastman, K.K. (1997), “The nature and implications of contextual influences
Pittenger, D.J. (2001), “Review of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research”, in
Plake, B.S. and Impara, J.C. (Eds.), The Fourteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook,
Porter, L.W., and McLaughlin, G.B. (2006), “Leadership and the organizational context: Like
Conceptual and empirical extensions”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15, pp. 329-354.
Roscoe, J.T. (1975), Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, Second
Rosenthal, R. and Rosnow, R.L. (1984), Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and
Rowe, W.G. (2001), “Creating wealth in organizations: The role of strategic leadership”,
Salam, S., Cox, J.F. and Sims, H.P. Jr. (1997), “In the eye of the beholder: How leadership
34
Saskin, M. (1988), “The visionary leader”, in Conger, J.A. and Kanungo R.A. (Eds.),
Saville, P., Sik, G., Nyfield, G., Hackston, J. and Maclver, R. (1996). “A demonstration of the
Schriesheim, C.A., Wu, J.B. and Scandura, T.A. (2009), “A Meso measure? Examination of
Schwarz, N. (1999), “Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers”, American
Sosik, J.J., Jung, D., and Dinger, S.L. (2009), “Values in authentic action: Examining the
roots and rewards of altruistic leadership”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 34,
pp. 395-431.
Spector, P.E. (1994), “Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use
of a controversial method”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15, pp. 385-392.
Stewart, M.M., and Johnson, O.E. (2009), “Leader member exchange as a moderator of the
relationship between work group diversity and team performance”, Group and
Stogdill, R.M. (1974), Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research, New York,
35
Stordeur, S., Vandenberghe, C. and D'hoore, W. (2000), “Leadership styles across hierarchical
Tepper, B.T. and Percy, P.M. (1994), “Structural validity of the Multifactor Leadership
Waldman, D.A. and Yammarino, F.J. (1999), “CEO charismatic leadership: Levels of
management and levels of analysis effects.” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, p.
266.
Weick, K.E., and Bougon, M.G. (2001), “Organizations as cognitive maps: Charting ways to
success and failure”, in K.E. Weick (Ed.). Making Sense of the Organization, Oxford:
Blackwell, pp. 308-329.
Yammarino, F.J. and Bass, B.M. (1990), ”Long-term forecasting of transformational
leadership and its effects among naval officers: some preliminary findings”, in Clark, K.E.
and Clark M.R. (Eds.), Measures of leadership, Greenboro, NC: Center for Creative
Yammarino, F.J. and Dubinsky, A.J. (1994), ”Transformational leadership theory: using levels
of analysis to determine boundary conditions”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 47, pp. 787-
811.
Transformational and transactional, Doctoral Dissertation. San Diego, CA: United States
International University.
Zaccaro, S.J. (2001), The nature of executive leadership, Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
36
Zhu, W., Avolio, B.J., and Walumbwa, F.O. (2009), “Moderating role of follower
37
Table 1. Domains and Levels in Stratified-systems Theory
Management)
1-2 years III - Department Direct
3 months to 1 year II - Section Direct
Up to 3 months I – Shop Floor (Direct Employee) Direct
Source. Hunt, J.G. (1991). Leadership: A New Synthesis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, p.17.
38
Table 2. Ratings Breakdown by Hierarchical Level
Rating Scope
360 degree 12 (40.0%) 15 (49.5%) 20 (37.0%) 19 (44.2%) 29 (52.7%)
270 degree 10 (33.3%) 9 (27.3%) 25 (46.3%) 15 (34.9%) 17 (30.9%)
180 degree 8 (26.7%) 9 (27.3%) 9 (16.7%) 9 (20.9%) 9 (16.4%)
Total 30 33 54 43 55
Total Ratings 94 105 173 139 185
39
Table 3. Ratings Breakdown by Time Span
Rating Scope
360 degree 27 (55.1%) 45 (57.0%) 25 (47.2%) 34 (60.7%)
270 degree 17 (34.7%) 24 (30.4%) 19 (35.8%) 18 (32.1%)
180 degree 5 (10.2%) 10 (12.6%) 9 (17.0%) 4 (7.5%)
Total 49 79 53 56
Total Ratings 169 272 175 198
40
Table 4: Inter-Correlations between Analysis Variables
Variable M SD X₁ X₂ X₃ X₄ X₅ X₆ X₇ X₈ X₉
X₁ AC 2.63 .80 1.00
X₂ II 2.55 .83 .67*** 1.00
X₃ IM 2.68 .84 .68*** .73*** 1.00
X₄ IS 2.60 .76 .62*** .58*** .61*** 1.00
X₅ IC 2.71 .83 .62*** .55*** .56*** .65*** 1.00
X₆ CR 2.67 .80 .64*** .65*** .66*** .60*** .63*** 1.00
X₇ MBEA 2.31 .87 .23*** .26*** .18*** .19*** .13*** .29*** 1.00
X₈ MBEP 1.25 .79 -.37*** -.25*** -.32*** -.33*** -.32*** -.30*** -.05* 1.00
X₉ LF .81 .75 -.46*** -.35*** -.41*** -.38*** -.39*** -.40*** -.08** .64*** 1.00
N.B. * = P<0.05, ** = P<0.01, *** = P<0.001,
Table 5: Means, Standard Deviations and Correlation Coefficients (Pearson’s r and Spearman’s ) for
Standard
Deviations
TFL 2.92 (.30) 2.81 (.43) 2.74 (.41) 2.62 (.44) 2.35 (.47)
TAL 2.07 (.26) 2.09 (.30) 2.11 (.25) 2.11 (.32) 2.02 (.24)
LF .68 (.43) .75 (.48) .75 (.43) .87 (.51) .90 (.53)
EE 2.87 (.43) 2.61 (.53) 2.50 (.58) 2.34 (.62) 2.10 (.53)
EFF 2.94 (.46) 3.07 (.36) 2.98 (.41) 2.88 (.51) 2.88 (.53)
Extra Effort
TFL .48** .77*** .70*** .69*** .63***
TAL -.27 -.04 .30* .32* .19
LF -.56** -.52** -.31* -.35* -.26
Effectiveness
TFL .57** .75*** .73*** .75*** .56***
TAL .15 .07 .12 .45** .31*
LF -.60*** -.64*** -.52*** -.55*** -.65***
Satisfaction
TFL .69*** .74*** .76*** .70*** .65***
TAL .19 -.00 .26 .33* .29*
LF -.65*** -.56** -.47*** -.66*** -.49***
N.B. * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, Spearman’s value (all other values are Pearson’s r)
Dependent Two years and One year and Three months Up to three
Variable under five years under two years and under one months (n=56)
Standard
Deviations
TFL 2.77 (.43) 2.76 (.40) 2.71 (.39) 2.52 (.42)
TAL 2.11 (.27) 2.12 (.25) 2.03 (.27) 2.07 (.22)
LF .84 (.47) .73 (.42) .68 (.40) .75 (.51)
EE 2.47 (.51) 2.48 (.59) 2.62 (.55) 2.30 (.61)
EFF 2.84 (.47) 3.02 (.43) 2.95 (.44) 2.94 (.43)
SAT 2.99 (.52) 3.02 (.48) 2.98 (.54) 3.00 (.57)
Extra Effort
TFL .66*** .77*** .72*** .59***
TAL .34* .32** -.03 .18
LF -.32* -.42*** -.62*** -.19
Effectiveness
TFL .69*** .72*** .73*** .67***
TAL .39* .22* .14 .18
LF -.50*** -.64*** -.64*** -.63***
Satisfaction
TFL .71*** .67*** .80*** .64***
TAL .36* .24* .06 .11
LF -.59*** -.70*** -.62*** -.65***
N.B. * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, Spearman’s value (all other values are Pearson’s r)
43
Table 7: Results of Multiple Regression for Extra Effort, Effectiveness and Satisfaction by
Hierarchical Level
44
Table 8: Results of Multiple Regression for Extra Effort, Effectiveness and Satisfaction by
Time Span
Independent Variable Two years and over One year and Three months Up to three
(n = 65) under two years and under one months
(n = 79) year (n = 56)
(n = 53)
Extra Effort
AC .21 .27 .40* .49*
II .16 .15 -.06 .00
IM .21 .24 .02 .13
IS .17 .06 .24 .06
IC .10 .27* -.05 -.01
CR .02 .08 .22 .16
MBEA -.12 .02 -.18 -.21
MBEP .05 .23* -.12 .07
LF .03 .00 -.12 .12
∆ R² .41 .62 .56 .32
F 5.90*** 14.92*** 8.28*** 3.92**
Effectiveness
AC .24 .56*** .26 .34*
II .03 -.04 .12 -.02
IM .16 -.07 -.17 -.34*
IS -.10 -.24* .08 .16
IC .26 .28** .38** .02
CR .20 .23* .07 .36*
MBEA -.04 -.10 .05 -.07
MBEP -.05 -.13 .01 -.19
LF -.13 -.06 -.29* -.30*
∆ R² .58 .67 .64 .61
F 10.92*** 18.58*** 11.35*** 10.67***
Satisfaction
AC .42* .45*** .27 .23
II -.07 -.11 .05 .04
IM -.07 -.18 .05 -.15
IS -.02 -.09 .15 -.01
IC .32 .39*** .42** .16
CR .22 .19* -.05 .16
MBEA -.04 -.06 .05 -.03
MBEP .02 .00 -.07 -.16
LF -.15 -.30** -.11 -.35*
∆ R² .62 .74 .71 .49
F 12.79*** 26.07*** 15.10*** 6.96***
N.B. * = P<0.05, ** = P<0.01, *** = P<0.001, ∆ R² = Adjusted regression Coefficient, , F = F Ratio
45
TFL .00 .04 .09 46.56*** .05 26.60***
CR .00 1.39 .03 13.99*** .04 23.09***
MBEA .00 .28 .02 10.46** .00 2.20
MBEP .01 3.63 .00 .16 .02 7.66**
TAL .00 .01 .00 .14 .00 .01
LF .00 .12 .02 10.04** .05 24.58***
EE .00 .00 .08 40.94*** .02 8.04**
EFF .00 .14 .01 3.53 .02 10.76**
SAT .00 .52 .00 2.18 .03 13.35***
ACLEAD .00 .00 .08 42.00*** .05 28.32***
PALEAD .00 .74 .00 2.22 .04 17.59***
N.B. * = P<0.05, ** = P<0.01, *** = P<0.001,
46
Figure 1. A Working Model of Transformational and Transactional Leadership across
Hierarchical Levels
TOP
DIRECTOR
SENIOR
Transformational leadership
47
Figure 2. A Model of Transformational and Transactional Leadership across Hierarchical
Levels according to Different Rating Sources
ratings
Key
48