Extra Carless 2000 Full Instrument

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGYVol. 14, No. 3, Spring 2000

A SHORT MEASURE OFTRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Sally A. CarlessMonash University, Caulfield, Australia

Alexander J. WearingLeon Mann

University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia

ABSTRACT: This study reports the development of a short measure of transforma-tional leadership: the Global Transformational Leadership scale (GTL). The studysample wAs 1,440 subordinates who assessed the leader behaviour of 695 branchmanagers in a large Australian financial organisation. Exploratory and confirma-tory factor analysis showed that the GTL measured a single construct of leadershipand had satisfactory reliability. Evidence for the convergent and discriminantvalidity is presented. We conclude that the GTL has a number of potential usesas an assessment and selection tool and in leadership research.

The issue of effective leadership in organisations has been raised byConger and Kanungo (1994) in this journal. Leadership skills are takeninto account in the selection, promotion and performance appraisals ofemployees (Atwater, Penn, & Rucker, 1991; Bass, 1990b; Howell & Hig-gins, 1990; Walderman, Bass, & Yammarino, 1993). In recognition of itsimportance, organisations typically assist and encourage the developmentof employees' leadership skills. Appraisal, evaluation and the developmentof leadership skills all require the assessment of leadership behaviour.Although measures of transformational leadership, such as the Multifac-tor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1995), theConger-Kanungo scale (Conger & Kanungo, 1994) and the LeadershipPractices Inventory (LPI; Kouzes & Posner, 1990) assess a range of leaderbehaviours, these scales are relatively long and therefore time consumingto complete. It was the aim of this study to develop a short, practical

Address correspondence to Sally A. Carless, Department of Psychology, Monash Univer-sity, PO Box 197, Caulfield East, Australia 3145; email: [email protected].

389 © 2000 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

390

instrument of transformational leadership which is easily administeredand scored yet is also reliable and valid.

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADER BEHAVIOURS

Podsakoff, McKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990), following a reviewof the literature on transformational leadership, concluded that it can besummarised by six behaviours, i.e., identifying and articulating a vision,providing an appropriate model, fostering the acceptance of group goals,high performance expectations, providing individualised support to staffand intellectual stimulation. We adapted their summary for this research.Specifically, we distinguished between the leader behaviours of providingsupport to staff (Podsakoff et al.) and encouraging their individual devel-opment. Hence, our list consisted of seven behaviours. We also preferredthe broader concept of charisma in contrast to the narrower concept of"high performance expectations" (Podsakoff et al.). The latter is usuallyconsidered to be part of charismatic behaviour (Bass, 1985). Accordingly,we propose that the following behaviours encompass the concept of trans-formational leadership: (1) communicates a vision, (2) develops staff, (3)provides support, (4) empowers staff, (5) is innovative, (6) leads by exam-ple, and (7) is charismatic.

1. Vision

A distinguishing feature of transformational theories of leadership isthat effective leaders create a vision or ideal goal (Bryman, 1992; Conger &Kanungo, 1988a; Yukl, 1994). Transformational leaders develop an imageof the future of their organisation and communicate this vision to theirsubordinates, often by frequent statements. Through the process of com-municating a vision, the leader conveys a set of values which guide andmotivate employees. At the practical level, a vision provides a commonpurpose for employees to work towards and promotes individual behaviourthat is congruent with the leaders' values for the organisation (Bass,1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1988a; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Sashkin, 1988;Riechmann, 1992; Tichy & Devanna, 1986).

Among practising managers there is a widespread belief that a visionof the future is the greatest competitive advantage a company can have(Coulson-Thomas & Coe, 1991; Hamel & Prahalad, 1994). Similar re-search has shown that many managers subscribe to the view that theability to create and share a vision is a key quality of leaders (Coulson-Thomas, Coe, 1991). Interviews with prominent business leaders for theKarpin Leadership Task Force Inquiry (Industry Task Force on Leader-

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

S. A. CARLESS, A. J. WEARING, AND L. MANN

ship and Management Skills, 1995) indicated that Australian managersalso share the view that vision is an essential quality of an ideal manager(Wawn, Green & others, Barraclough & Co., 1995).

2. Staff Development

Effective leaders facilitate and encourage the personal developmentof their staff (Bass, 1985). They diagnose the needs and abilities of eachstaff member and advise and encourage individual development, usuallyon a one-to-one basis (Bass, 1985; Nadler & Tushman, 1990). Individualdevelopment includes delegating tasks and responsibilities to followersto facilitate the development of new skills and to provide challengingopportunities (Bass & Avolio, 1990). Through delegation a leader conveysconfidence in the abilities of his or her staff to perform effectively(Nadler & Tushman, 1990).

3. Supportive Leadership

Supportive leadership includes giving positive feedback to staff andrecognising individual achievements. Through the use of supportive lead-ership, leaders express confidence in the abilities of their staff to performeffectively and to succeed in achieving challenging goals. It is especiallyimportant that the leader supports staff when difficult and challenginggoals are set (Nadler & Tushman, 1990; Yukl, 1994). Supportive leader-ship is not only important for the individual, but also the team as a whole(Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). Kouzes and Posner (1987) maintain thatsuccessful leaders not only acknowledge individuals, but also providerecognition of team achievements and successes. Public recognition ofteam work provides evidence that the leader values and supports thework being undertaken. It also builds commitment to achieving the lead-er's vision and identification with the team.

4. Empowerment

Effective leaders involve team members in decision making. Suchleaders share power and information with their staff and encourage auton-omy (Conger & Kanungo, 1988b; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Larson & La-Fasto, 1989; Nadler & Tushman, 1990; Sashkin, 1990). They set up policiesand procedures which involve staff in the problem-solving and decisionmaking of the team. An effective leader empowers team members byensuring they have the authority to implement policies and by supportingmembers' decisions. Empowerment also involves creating a climate of

391

392

trust, respect, open communication and cooperation which facilitates acooperative, participative group climate (Conger & Kanungo, 1988b;Riechmann, 1992).

5. Innovative or Lateral Thinking

Effective leaders use innovative, sometimes unconventional strate-gies to achieve their goals (Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1988a;Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Sashkin, 1988, 1990; Tichy & Devanna, 1986).Such leaders are willing to take risks to achieve their vision and enjoychallenging opportunities. Similarly, transformational leaders encouragetheir staff to think laterally and regularly give them challenging tasks.Associated with the development of innovative behaviour is the acceptanceby the leader that mistakes are seen as a learning opportunity.

6. Lead by Example

Transformational leaders display consistency between the views theyarticulate and their behaviour. An effective leader clearly communicateshis or her beliefs and values to staff. Leading by example is also referredto as role modelling (Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Podsakoff, McKenzie, Moor-man, & Fetter, 1990). Leaders express self-confidence and set an examplefor staff that is congruent with the attitudes and values they espouse(Bass, 1985; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1988a; Kouzes& Posner, 1987; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Shamir, House, andArthur (1993) summarised this behaviour as "the leader provides an ideal,a point of reference and focus for followers' emulation and vicarious learn-ing" (p. 585).

7. Charismatic Leadership

There exists considerable debate about whether charismatic leader-ship is a distinct and separate transformational leader behaviour. Bass(1985, 1992) proposed that the most important quality of a transforma-tional leader is charismatic leadership. Charismatic leaders are perceivedas trustworthy, highly competent and worthy of respect (Avolio & Bass,1990). Through charismatic leadership, the follower is inspired to height-ened levels of motivation and performance in support of the organisationalgoals. Bass and his colleagues posit that charisma is an essential transfor-mational leader behaviour. An alternate view is that charisma is an attri-bute followers make of their leader (Conger & Kanungo, 1988a).1


It is acknowledged that the term charismatic leadership is also used by some authorsas a generic term to describe a style of leadership, e.g., House, Woycke, and Fodor, 1988;Nadler and Tushman, 1990. In these instances the authors have used the term as analternate to transformational leadership. Hence, we have assumed that use of the term inthis context does not represent another approach to defining charismatic leadership.


Research by Bass and his colleagues indicated that charisma is themost important component of transformational leadership (Bass, 1992;Yammarino & Bass, 1990). The evidence suggests that charismatic leader-ship is an important predictor of leader effectiveness (Seltzer & Bass,1990), work performance of managers (Hater & Bass, 1988) and businessunit performance (Avolio & Howell, 1992; Howell & Avolio, 1993). There-fore, in this study charismatic leadership was included as a componentof transformational leadership.

MEASUREMENT OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

A brief, reliable and valid scale would have substantial utility valueif a broad measure of transformational leadership was required for re-search or applied purposes. Based on the leader behaviours describedabove, items were written to capture each of the seven leader behaviours.These were: (1) Communicates a clear and positive vision of the future,(2) treats staff as individuals, supports and encourages their development,(3) gives encouragement and recognition to staff, (4) fosters trust, involve-ment and co-operation among team members, (5) encourages thinkingabout problems in new ways and questions assumptions, (6) is clear abouthis/her values and practises what he/she preaches, and (7) instills prideand respect in others and inspires me by being highly competent. It canbe seen that some of the items use a single omnibus statement to representquite complex behaviours. We took the approach of using broad statementsbecause we were interested in developing a brief measure consistent withtheoretical conceptualisations of transformational leadership. A numberof the notionally distinct behaviours include a cluster of highly interre-lated behaviours (e.g. Conger & Kanungo, 1988a; Kouzes & Posner, 1987).Together the seven items were named the Global Transformational Lead-ership scale (GTL) as they were designed to represent a global measureof transformational leadership.

METHOD

Participants and Procedure

The subject sample was 695 branch managers of a retail bank inAustralia. District Managers and subordinates of the branch managerswere invited to rate their manager. Data were obtained from 1,440 subor-dinates (response rate: 54%) and 66 District Managers (response rate:100%) who worked in Australia for an international banking organisation.Country and city branch employees in all Australian states were surveyed.The four most senior subordinates in a branch were sent a letter outlining

393

394

the purpose of the study and inviting them to participate. The most seniorstaff were selected on the assumption that they worked most closely withtheir manager. It was reasoned that subordinates who worked most closelywith the branch manager would have the greatest number of opportunitiesto observe performance and would be more acquainted with his or herleadership behaviour. Participants were provided with a self-addressedenvelope and asked to return their completed questionnaires direct to theresearchers.

Of the 695 branch managers in the study sample, 139 (20%) werefemale and 556 (80%) were male. The mean age of the branch managerswas 41 years (SD = 7.81) and their ages ranged from 23 to 58. The meanlength of time with the bank was 22 years (SD) = 9.14). The mean numberof staff they managed was 11 and the range was from 2 to 54. On average,two subordinates per branch manager responded. The majority of subordi-nates were female (69%). The mean age of the subordinates was 31.2years (SD = 7.92) and their ages ranged from 20 to 58 years. The averagelength of time the subordinate had worked for the bank was 9 years (SD= 6.61) and the average length of time that they had worked with theircurrent branch manager was 1.7 years (SD = 1.53).

District Managers are responsible for the effective operation of acluster of branches, usually 10 to 25 branch outlets. The mean numberof branches they managed was 16. A small proportion of District Managerswere female (5%), the majority were male (95%). Their mean age was 46years (SD = 6.17), the range was from 31 to 55 years. The average lengthof time with the bank was 26 years (SD = 10.36) and the mean length oftime in their current position was 3 years (SD = 2.89).

Measures

Transformational Leadership. In addition to the GTL (seven items), theLeadership Practices Inventory (LPI) (Kouzes & Posner, 1990), and theMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1995)were administered to assess the leadership behaviour of the branch man-ager. The GTL was completed by the District Manager and the subordi-nates. The LPI and MLQ was completed only by the subordinates.

The LPI (Kouzes & Posner, 1990) measures five leadership practicesidentified by Kouzes and Posner (1987): Challenging the Process (alpha= .81), Inspiring a Shared Vision (alpha = .90), Enabling Others to Act(alpha = .89), Modelling the Way (alpha = .86) and Encouraging the Heart(alpha = .94). Six items are used to measure each of the five scales, thetotal number of items is 30. The MLQ Form 5X assesses three dimensionsof transformational leadership: Charismatic leadership (8 items), Individ-ual Consideration (9 items), and Intellectual Stimulation (10 items). TheMLQ has 27 items. The alpha coefficients were .91 for Charismatic leader-



ship, .93 for Individual Consideration, and .92 for Intellectual Stimulation.District Manager ratings of their branch managers on the GTL had analpha coefficient of .90.

The response format was standardised for the leadership instru-ments. A 5-point Likert scale ranging from "Rarely or never" to "Veryfrequently, if not always" was employed. This was slightly different fromthe original format for the MLQ ("not at all," to "frequently, if not always")but was necessary to ensure a standard response format for the items.Instructions to employees asked them to rate their branch manager "interms of how frequently he or she engages in the behaviour described."The instructions asked raters to be realistic and answer in terms of howthe manager typically behaves.

Manager Performance. A work performance scale was devised by Carless(1995) to assess perceptions of the managers' quality of work, productivityand adaptability. Items were based on the conceptual work of Mott (1972).A sample item is "He or she produces high quality work." The responseformat was a five-point Likert scale ranging from "Rarely or Never" to"Very Frequently or Always." The items were summed for a score ofManager Performance. A high score indicated excellent performance. Thealpha coefficients were .90 for the subordinates' ratings and .87 for theDistrict Managers' ratings. The seven items were tested on a pilot sampleof 77 respondents. Exploratory factor analysis indicated that the itemsformed a single construct. The single factor structure found in the pilotsample was replicated in this study.

Leader Effectiveness. A five item scale was used to measure subordinateperceptions of the effectiveness of their manager. The global items weredevised by Ragins (1989) to measure "perceived leader effectiveness." Asample item is "My leader displays strong leadership abilities." A highscore indicated a high level of perceptions of effective leadership. Theresponse format was a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 "StronglyDisagree" to 7 "Strongly Agree." The coefficient alpha was .90. Raginsreported a strong correlation between the global Leader Effectivenessscale and 46 behaviourally based items of leader effectiveness (Ragins,1989) suggesting that the scale provides a reasonable index of effectiveleader behaviour. Factor analysis confirmed the single factor structurereported by Ragins.

Subordinate Extra Effort. This scale measures the motivation subordi-nates attribute to their leader. For example, "He/she motivates me towork hard on the job." Four items form the scale. One item was from theMLQ Form 5X (Bass & Avolio, 1990), while the other three items werefrom the manager effectiveness scale (Tjosvold, Andrews, & Struthers,1991) and were slightly adapted. The extra effort scale is similar in mean-

395

396

ing to Bass's (1985) extra effort scale. However, the advantage of thepresent scale is that it more specifically measures effort as it relates tojob performance. The response format was the same as for the leadershipitems, i.e., a 5-point Likert frequency response. Exploratory factor analy-sis indicated the items formed a single factor. The alpha coefficient of thescale was .86.

RESULTS

Factor Analysis

Principal components factor analysis was used to assess the factorstructure of the GTL. Cattell's scree test and Kaiser's criterion clearlyshowed that the items assessed one underlying dimension of leadership.The eigenvalue was 5.0 which explained 71% of the variance. The explor-atory factor loadings are reported in Table 1. The factor loadings rangedfrom .78 to .88 with a mean of .84 (SD = .05). As there exists widespreaddebate about whether principal components or common factor analysis isthe appropriate method of extraction (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black,


Table 1Factor Loadings and Standardised Item Reliabilities Obtained from

Exploratory (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) of the GTL

Dimension of Leadership and Items

1. Visioncommunicates a clear and positive vision of the future

2. Staff Developmenttreats staff as individuals, supports and encourages theirdevelopment

3. Supportive Leadershipgives encouragement and recognition to staff

4. Empowermentfosters trust, involvement and cooperation among teammembers

5. Innovative Thinkingencourages thinking about problems in new ways and questionsassumptions

6. Lead by Exampleis clear about his/her values and practises what he/she preaches

7. Charismainstills pride and respect in others and inspires me by beinghighly competent

EFA

78

88

84

89

80

80

89

CFA

72

87

82

88

74

75

88

N =1432Note: Decimal points omitted


1995) a second factor analysis was performed. A maximum likelihoodextraction confirmed the finding of a single underlying factor.

Exploratory factor analysis has traditionally been employed by lead-ership researchers as a tool to determine the number of underlying dimen-sions in a data set (e.g., Hemphill & Coons, 1957; Kouzes & Posner, 1990).However, this approach fails to take into account measurement error(Crocker & Algina, 1986; Cuttance, 1987; Rubio & Gillespie, 1995). An-other approach is confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). CFA: (a) providesa formal test of how well the observed data fits a theoretical model (Gerb-ing & Hamilton, 1996; Stevens, 1995); (b) measurement error is takeninto account; and (c) competing models can be compared (Cuttance, 1987;Bollen, 1989; Griffin & Barlow, 1994; Judd, Jessor, & Donovan, 1986;Loehlin, 1992). Hence, following the recommendations of Gerbing andHamilton (1996) that CFA should be used to evaluate a model identifiedby exploratory factor analysis, the next step in our analyses was to useCFA to confirm the single factor structure of the GTL.

The computer program LISREL 8 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993) usedto analyse the seven GTL items. A covariance matrix was used as theinput data (Cudeck, 1989) and the method of estimation was maximumlikelihood. Although the likelihood ratio test statistic (reported here as achi-square statistic) provides the only true parametric test of a model'sfit (Cuttance & Ecob, 1987), this statistic is strongly influenced by samplesize and departures from multivariate normality. Consequently, Browneand Cudeck (1993) argue that the root mean square error of approximation(RMSEA) provides a better indicator of fit. Recently, Gerbing and Ander-son (1992) have argued that the relative noncentrality index (RNI) (Mc-Donald and Marsh, 1990) provides the best incremental fit index. TheRNI is unaffected by sample size and compares the model under investiga-tion with a null model that assumes no relationship between the observedvariables. The standardised root mean square residual (RMSQ) can beused to compare the relative fit of a model (Bollen, 1989; Joreskog &Sorbom, 1993b).

The goodness-of-fit statistics for the GTL were: chi-square = 243, d.f.= 14, p = .001, RMSEA = .11, RMSR = .03 and RNI = .97. The findingsindicate there is a good fit between the observed variance-covariancematrice and the tested model. The RNI exceeds the minimum acceptablevalue of .90 for acceptable models (Bagozzi & Heartherton, 1994). Thestandardised item loadings for the seven-item model are presented inTable 1. The loadings range from .72 to .88 and the mean is .81 (SD =.07). It can be seen that all items are reasonable to strong indicators ofthe construct. The items that share the most variance with the singlefactor and therefore define the factor are empowerment, staff developmentand charisma.

Bagozzi and Heartherton (1994) recommend that in addition to the

397


goodness of fit statistics, the reliability and average amount of varianceextracted (AVE) should be examined. Using the Bagozzi and Hearthertonformula, the reliability of the GTL was calculated to be .93. Next, theparameter estimates were used to calculate the average variance ex-tracted (AVE) by the single factor model (Bagozzi & Heartherton, 1995).Our calculations of AVE exceed the minimum acceptable value of .50 fora satisfactory measurement model (e.g., Fornell & Larker, 1981) (AVE =.67). These findings provide strong evidence that the seven-item GTL ishighly reliable.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity of the GTL was examined by calculating correla-tions between the GTL and alternate measures of transformational leader-ship, i.e., the MLQ and the LPI. It was hypothesised that the GTL itemsshould differentially correlate with the sub-scales of the MLQ and theLPI that were conceptually similar (Messick, 1989). The following is alist of the behaviours measured by the GTL and in parentheses are thesub-scales of the LPI and MLQ which are similar in meaning: (1) vision(LPI-Inspiring a Shared Vision), (2) staff development (MLQ-IndividualConsideration), (3) supportive leadership (LPI-Encouraging the Heart),(4) empowerment (LPI-Enabling Others), (5) innovative and lateral think-ing (LPI-Challenging the Process and MLQ-Intellectual Stimulation), (6)lead by example (LPI-Modelling the Way) and (7) charismatic leadership(MLQ-Charisma). Evidence of strong correlations with the GTL and thesimilar sub-scales of the LPI and MLQ and weaker correlations betweenthe other sub-scales, will be taken to support the convergent validity ofthe GTL. Table 2 contains the correlations between the GTL items andthese sub-scales. Underlining is used to indicate the correlation betweenan item and the construct it represents.

It can be seen that for each item the strongest relationship is withthe construct to which it is conceptually similar. The correlations rangefrom .71 to .87. The exception to this pattern is our item 3, lead by example,which correlates equally with Modelling the Way (LPI) and Charisma(MLQ). Charismatic leadership has been defined as providing an idealrole model (Conger & Kanungo, 1988a) and worthy of respect (Bass, 1985).Thus, while item 3 was hypothesised to represent Modelling the Way, thefindings suggest it has similar meaning to Charisma. The pattern of highcorrelations with the hypothesised constructs provides evidence that theGTL corresponds to other measures of transformational leadership.

Table 2 also reports the correlations between total GTL score andscores on the LPI and MLQ (right hand column). The correlations rangefrom .76 to .88 with a mean of .83 (SD = .04). The high correlations between

398

400

the GTL and the LPI and MLQ provide evidence that the GTL has strongconvergent validity. The next step in the analyses was to examine thediscriminant validity of the GTL.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was demonstrated by comparing groups of man-agers who would be expected to have different scores on the GTL (Allen &Yen, 1979; Cohen, Swerdlik, & Smith, 1992; Messick, 1989). Consistentwith theories of transformational, it was hypothesised that scores on theGTL would be different for managers who varied in the extent to whichthey: (a) elicit extra effort from subordinates (i.e., they inspire subordi-nates to work harder than is normally expected of them), (b) show leadereffectiveness, and (c) demonstrate high quality work performance. Follow-ing the criticism that leadership research has relied too heavily on single-source data (normally the practice of relying on ratings from one groupof people) (Bryman, 1992; Schaubroeck & Kuehn, 1992; Yukl, 1994), weobtained ratings from multiple sources: District Managers (superiors ofthe managers) and subordinates.

T-tests were used to examine whether the GTL discriminates betweencontrasting groups. The following groups were created: high and low sub-ordinate extra effort; high and weak performing managers; and, moreeffective versus less effective managers. The mean was used to split thesample into two contrasting groups ("high" and "low"). As it was notpossible to split the groups evenly, the sample size of each group is in-cluded in Table 3 along with the results of the t-test analyses. In theanalyses, subordinate ratings of the managers leadership behaviour werepaired with District Manager ratings of manager performance, and Dis-trict Manager ratings of the managers GTL were coupled with subordinateratings of manager performance, leader effectiveness and subordinateextra effort.

The t-test results show that the GTL discriminates significantly be-tween all of the contrasted groups: (a) highly motivated subordinatescompared with less motivated subordinates; (b) high and poor performingmanagers (based on District Manager and subordinate ratings); and (c)highly effective leaders compared with less effective leaders. These find-ings provide substantial evidence of the discriminant validity of the GTL.

Descriptive Statistics and Alpha Coefficients

The possible range in scores on the GTL is 7 to 35. The mean scorewas 25.00 and the standard deviation was 6.76. These statistics indicatethat there is adequate dispersion of scores on the GTL. Cronbach's alpha


S. A. CARLESS, A. J. WEARING, AND L. MANN 401

Table 3T-Test Results Comparing Managers' Scores on the GTL

Dependent Variable andGroup (rating source)

Subordinate extra effort(Subordinate)

Manager performance(District Managers)

Manager performance(Subordinate)

Leader effectiveness(Subordinate)

HighLow

HighLow

HighLow

HighLow

N

371310

358320

352329

349336

Managers' GTL Scores

Mean(rating source)

26.31(District Managers)

24.0426.31

(Subordinate)23.8526.63

(District Managers)23.8226.75

(District Manager)23.76

SD

4.875.65

5.396.21

5.065.29

4.905.4

T-value

5.56***

5.47***

7.06***

7.57***

Note: ***p = <.001.

was calculated as .93. The high alpha coefficient further supports theconclusion that the GTL is a reliable measure of transformational leader-ship.

DISCUSSION

Evidence reported in this study has shown that the GTL has highreliability and assesses a single global construct of transformational lead-ership. Initial support was found for the convergent and discriminantvalidity of the GTL. Scores on the GTL provide an indication of the practiseof transformational leadership, that is, the extent to which a manager isvisionary, innovative, supportive, participative and worthy of respect.High scores suggest the manager makes extensive use of transformationalleadership, low scores are associated with infrequent or rare use of trans-formational leadership. The GTL can be completed by either a subordinateor a direct superior.

We found that total score on the GTL correlated strongly with theLPI and MLQ. In addition, the items of the GTL correlated differentiallywith the sub-scales of the LPI and MLQ, suggesting that the GTL providesan assessment of the seven hypothesised transformational leader behav-iours. In contrast to the LPI, which measures five transformational leader-ship behaviours, and the MLQ which measures three, the GTL measures

a broader range of transformational leader behaviour. When a globalassessment of leadership is required, the GTL is an alternate short mea-sure of transformational leadership.

An important feature of this study was the use of two sources of datato test the discriminant validity of the GTL. Scores on the GTL wereshown to successfully discriminate between selected groups of managers,i.e., high and weak performing managers, effective and less effective man-agers, and highly motivating and less motivating managers.

These preliminary findings suggest the GTL may be useful in a vari-ety of situations. It could be used as an assessment tool to gather informa-tion for performance appraisal reviews. Although traditionally, superiorshave been responsible for evaluating work performance, many organisa-tions are starting to include subordinates in the process (Gome, 1994).The GTL could be used as a diagnostic tool, for example, to identifythe development needs of a manager. As the GTL is quick and easy toadminister, managers could use it to obtain feedback on their leadershipbehaviour from their staff. Preliminary findings indicate that feedbackfrom subordinates is received positively by managers (Bernardin, Dah-mus, & Redmon, 1993) and can result in improved performance (Atwater,Roush, & Fischthall, 1995; Hegarty, 1974; Smither et al., 1995). Basedon the view that leadership skills should be taken into account whenselecting and promoting managers, the GTL could be used as a selectiontool. Preliminary findings indicate that the GTL discriminates betweenbetter performing and weaker performing managers. A substantial advan-tage of GTL is that it takes less than one minute to complete. Finally,the GTL could be used by researchers to provide a broad indication ofleadership behaviour.

The GTL provides a broad assessment of transformational leadership.It is a short scale that is easy to administer and score. Initial evidenceindicates that it has satisfactory reliability and construct validity. Thereported high correlations between the GTL and other measures of trans-formational leadership suggest that the GTL is an alternative short mea-sure of transformational leadership with a broad range of potential.

REFERENCES

Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (1979). Introduction to measurement theory. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

Atwater, L., Penn, R., & Rucker, L. (1991). Personal qualities of charismatic leaders. Leader-ship and Organization Development Journal, 12, 7-10.

Atwater, L., Roush, P., & Fischthal, A. (1995). The influence of upward feedback on self-and follower ratings of leadership. Personnel Psychology, 48, 35-59.

Avolio, B., Bass, B., & Jung, D. I. (1995). MLQ Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Techni-cal report. Palo Alto, CA: Mind garden.

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY402


Avolio, B., & Howell, J. M. (1992). The impact of leadership behavior and leader-followerpersonality match on satisfaction and unit performance. In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, &D. P. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leadership (pp. 225-236). Greensboro, NC: Center forCreative Leadership.

Bagozzi, R, P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approach to representing multifacetedpersonality constructs: Application to state self-esteem. Structural Equation Modelling,1, 35-67.

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.Bass, B. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the

vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31.Bass, B. (1992). Assessing the charismatic leader. In M. Syrett & C. Hogg, (Eds.), Frontiers

of leadership (pp. 414-418). Blackwell: Oxford, U.K.Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York:

Harper & Row.Bernardin, H., Dahmus, S. A., & Redmon, G. (1993). Attitudes of first-line supervisors

toward subordinate appraisals. Human Resource Management, 32, 315-324.Bollen, K., & Long, J. S. (1992). Tests for structural equation models. Sociological Methods

and Research, 21, 123-131.Brown, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternate ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen &

J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publica-tions.

Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organisations. London: Sage Publications.Carless, S. A. (1995). Transformational leadership and Australian bank managers. Unpub-

lished doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne, Australia.Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., & Smith, D. K. (1992). Psychological testing and assessment:

An introduction to tests and measurement (2nd ed.). Mountain View, CA: MayfieldPublishing Company.

Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1994). Charismatic leadership in organizations: Perceived behav-ioural attributes and their measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 439-452.

Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1988a). Behavioural dimensions of charismatic leadership. InJ. Conger, R. Kanungo, & Associates. Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor inorganisational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1988b). The empowerment process: Integrating theory andpractice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471—482.

Coulson-Thomas, C., & Coe, T. (1991). The flat organization: Philosophy and practice. Corby:BIM.

Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York:Holt Rinehart & Winston.

Cudeck, R. (1989). Analysis of correlation matrices using covariance structure models. Psy-chological Bulletin, 105, 317-327.

Cuttance, P. (1987). Issues and problems in the application of structural equation models.In P. Cuttance, & R. Ecob (Eds.), Structural modelling by example: Applications ineducational, sociological, and behavioral research (pp. 241-279). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Cuttance, P., & Ecob, P. (1987). Introduction. In P. Cuttance, & R. Ecob (Eds.), Structuralmodelling by example: Applications in educational, sociological, and behavioral research(pp. 1-8). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobserv-able variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.

Gerbing, D., & Anderson, J. (1992). Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness of fit indices forstructural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 132-160.

Gerbing, D., & Hamilton, J. G. (1996). Viability of exploratory factor analysis as a precursorto confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modelling, 3, 62-72.

Gome, A. (1994,16 May). Breaking down the macho culture. Business Review Weekly, 42-45.Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other: Fundamental dimensions

underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,67, 430-445.

403

404

Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.

Hater, J., & Bass, B. (1988). Superiors' evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of transfor-mational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695-702.

Hegarty, W. H. (1974). Using subordinate ratings to elicit behavioural change in supervisors.Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 764-766.

Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Development of the leader behavior descriptionquestionnaire. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its descriptionand measurement. Columbus: Ohio State University Bur. Business Res. Monograph No88.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership,locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902.

Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of change: Identifying, understanding, andsupporting champions of technological innovations. Organizational Dynamics, Summer,40-55.

Industry Task Force on Leadership and Management Skills. Enterprising Nation Vol 1 and2. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Services.

Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Chicago, IL: ScientificSoftware International Co.

Judd, C., Jessor, R., & Donovan, J. (1986). Structural equation models and personalityresearch. Journal of Personality, 54, 149-198.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary thingsdone in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1990). Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI):A self-assessment andanalysis. San Diego Pfeiffer & Co.

Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. (1989). Team-work: What must go right / what can go wrong.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Latent variables models: An introduction to factor, path, and structuralanalysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

McDonald, R. P., & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality andgoodness of fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 247-255.

Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement, (3rd ed., pp.13-103). New York: American Council on Education and Mcmillan Publishing Co.

Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (1994). Psychological testing:Principles and applications(3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Nadler, D., & Tushman, M. (1990). Beyond the charismatic leader: Leadership and organisa-tional change. California Management Review, 32, 77-97.

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, S., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leaderbehaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizationalcitizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.

Ragins, B. R. (1989). Power and gender congruency effects in evaluations of male and femalemanagers. Journal of Management, 15, 65-76.

Riechmann, D. (1992). High involvement, high performance teams in higher education: Theimpact of leadership. In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. P. Campbell (Eds.), Impact ofleadership (pp. 257-268). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Rubio, D. M., & Gillespie, D. F. (1995). Problems with error in structural equation models.Structural Equation Modelling, 2, 367-378.

Sashkin, M. (1988). Visionary leadership. In J. Conger, R. Kanungo & Associates. Charis-matic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Sashkin, M. (1990). The visionary leader trainer guide: Leader Behavior Questionnaire (3rded.). Pennsylvania: Organisation Development and Design.

Schaubroeck, J., & Kuehn, K. (1992). Research design in industrial and organisationalpsychology. In C. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrialand Organisational Psychology, Volume 7 (pp. 99-121). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consider-ation. Journal of Management, 16, 693-703.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismaticleadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577-594.



Smither, J. W., London, M., Vasilopoulous, Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., & Salvemini, N.(1995). An examination of the effects of an upward feedback program over time. Person-nel Psychology, 48, 1-34.

Stevens, J. J. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Iowa tests of basic skills. StructuralEquation Modelling, 2, 214-231.

Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986). Transformational leadership. New York: Wiley.Tjosvold, D., Andrews, I. R., & Struthers, J. (1991). Power and interdependence on work

groups: Views of managers and employees. Group & Organization Studies, 16, 285-299.Walderman, D., Bass, B., & Yammarino, F. (1990). Adding to contingent-reward behavior:

The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Group and Organizational Studies,15, 381-394.

Wawn, T., Green, J., and others, Barraclough & Co. (1995). Experienced insights: Opinionsof Australian managers, ideals, strengths & weaknesses. In Industry Task Force onLeadership and Management Skills. Enterprising Nation Vol. 1 (pp. 521-586). Canberra:Australian Government Publishing Services.

Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. (1990). Long-term forecasting of transformational leadershipand its effects among naval officers: Some preliminary findings. In K. E. Clark, &M. B. Clark, (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 171-184). West Orange, NJ: LeadershipLibrary of America.

Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organisations (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

405

Documents

Extra Carless 2000 Full Instrument