Hargis Developin Leaders

8/11/2019 Hargis Developin Leaders

1/17

Abstract

Developing Leaders:Examining the Role of

Transactional andTransformationalLeadership Across BusinessContexts

Michae l B. HargisJohn D Watt

Chris P iotrowski

Mic hael B. Hargis Ph.D. is anAssistant Professor of Managementand Innovation at the University ofCentral Arkansas. His research inter-ests focus on understanding howperson- and situation-based factors

influence both functional (e.g., taskpersistence, innovation, goal setting)and dysfunctional (e.g., unethical

ecision-making, workplace deviance) behavior inrganizations. His research appears in jou rna ls such as

Personnel Psychology ournal of Vocational Behavior an dumar Relations. Dr. Hargis serves as a member of the

Arkansas Governor s Council of Economic Advisors.

Contact Inform ationDepartment of Marketing and ManagementUniversity of Central Arkansas

01 Donaghey Avenueonway,AR 72035

Over the past 20 years, the Multifactor LeaderTheory MLT) has become one of the mostdominant theories of leadership. This popularis due, in part, to the broad range of leadershibehav iors included in the theory. Bass 1985) colleagues conceptualized leadership as consising of three primary factors i.e., transform atiotransacfional, and passive/laissez-faire leadersand p rior research has clearly linked transformtional and transactional leadership to importanoutcomes, such as employee commitment andorganizational performance. Furtherm ore, priresearch has established that these behaviors cbe developed throug h training. However, it isless well understood how the importance of thbehaviors changes across organizational settinThe purpo se of this study, therefore, is to exam across two data sets) the relative importance othese leadership factors across various outcom i.e., team potency/efficacy, team cohesion, andperformance) and organizational contexts i.e.,

military and healthcare). Results indicate thattransformafional leadership behaviors arecritically important for team cohesion and teampotency/efficacy Data Set 1) and leadereffectiveness Data Set 2), and that transac tionaleadership becomes particularly salient withregard to actual task performance and extra ef Data Set and 2). Implications of these result

for practitioners are discussed, and a useful taxonomy to guide leadership development is provided.


2/17

IntroductionJohn D. W att Ph.D. is an AssociateProfessor of Organizational Behaviorand Hum an Resources OBHR) in theDepartment of Management at theUniversity of Central Arkansas. Hisresearch interests center around theinfluence of cognitive and personality

variables on organizational behavior.He is particularly interested in the areas

of boredom proneness, individual attitude strength e.g.,affective-cognitive consistency), employee engagement,perceived organizational support, and underem ployme nt.His research appears in journals such as Journal of AppliedPsychology, Journal of Business and Psychology, andJournal o f Research in Personality. Dr. Wa tt curre ntly servesas Executive Editor of The Journal o f P sychology:Interdisciplinary and Applied.

Contact InformationDepartment of Marketing and ManagementUniversity of Central Arkansas201 Donaghey AvenueConway, AR 72035

Chris Piotrowski has s erved as a

research consu ltant at the University ofWest Florida since 1982. He hasauthored over 200 peer-reviewed pub-lications, including book chapters overthe past 30 years. He has a researchfocus o n da tabase s earching , assess-ment issues, and the study of disasters.His work has appeared in the

ncydopedia of Stress Chris also serves as a reviewer forjournals in psychology, me dicine, and business.

Contact InformationChris Piotrowski504 Concordia Blvd.Pensacola FL [email protected]

Effective leade rship h as been recognized tral determinan t of growth a nd success worganizational settings ranging from profiing enterprises to amateur and professiona

letics, religious organizations, and military(Judge Piccolo, 2004; Low e, Kroeck,Sivasubram aniam, 1996; No rtho use , 2007)recognition has resulted in increasing inteleadership development, with organizatioinvesting greater and greater resources intership development and succession plann(Bolt, 2007; Carter, Ulrich, Go ldsm ith, 20Hernez-Broom e Hughes, 2004; Riggio, 2

Across settings, transformational leadershbehaviors have become o ne of the most doapproaches to understanding leadership efness (Lowe Gardner, 2001) and certain tmational leadership beha viors are includeleadership development programs from conies operating in industries ranging from oretail (e.g., Zappos .com ) to finance (e.g., Gtal; Hsieh, 2010). Furthermore, there is subtial evidence that transformational leadersbehaviors lead to important individual-levcomes such as employee commitment, motand task performance and organization-levcomes such as firm performance (Barling, Kelloway 1996; Bono Judge, 2004; BycHackett, Allen, 1995). Finally as describthe Multifactor Leadership Theory (MLT), dence suggests that transformational leadbehaviors augment, or build upon, transacleadership behaviors such as utilizing conrew ards (Judge Piccolo, 2004).

Thus, the extant research provide s reasonastrong sup port for the theoretical predicat


3/17

rived from the MLT (cf.. House Sham ir, 1993;well Avolio, 1993; Judge Piccolo, 2004;we et al., 1996). Nam ely, transac tional leader-p behaviors and transformational leadershiphaviors are necessary to effectively perform as ader and that transformational leadership addsremental value to more tradition al transaction-eadership behav iors. While prior research has

gely supported the theoretical tene ts outlinedthe MLT, leadership scholars have b egun to rec-nize that aspects of the situation, or organiza-nal context, impact w^hat leader beh avio rs areimately effective (Lord, Brown, Harvey, Hall,01; Shamir How ell, 1999). That is, the trans -rmational or transactional leader behaviors thate effective in one situation (e.g., the Peacerps) may not trans late to effective performancea different context (e.g.. New York Yankees

ont Office). The sam e is true across differentrformance criteria (Judge Piccolo, 2004). Inct, evidence (cf. Antonokis et al., 2003; Denrtog et al., 1999) clearly ind icates tha t the

ader behaviors that relate to some criteria (e.g.,

tra effort, team efficacy) are not equally predic-e of other criteria (e.g., creativity, com mitm ent,.) across diverse organizational settings.

ven the role of leadership in creating and sus-ning a competitive advantage , and the roledership development training programs play

shaping leader beh avio rs (Parry Sinha, 2005),

s important to un de rsta nd the specific factorst impact organizational success. Furthe rmo re,s important to examine how the im portance ofse factors changes across characteristics of the

ganization. Thus , the purp ose of this stud y isextend prior research by exploring the relativeportance of a wide range of leader behaviorsd subsequen t performance across a variety of

anizationally v alued criteria (e.g., team poten-

cy/efficacy, job performance, team cohesion) aorganizational contexts (e.g., private healthcarand military). This is particularly importan tbecause prior research has relied on faulty meures to assess predictor importance, and there some data suggesting that leadership behaviochange in importance across contexts (Den Haet al., 1999; Johnson LeBreton, 2004; LeBretoHargis, Griepenti-og, Oswald, Ployhart, 2007)Additionally, these data will help practitionerscreate leadership development approaches thaare more cost and time-effective, and context ssitive, due to the increased aw areness of whichbehaviors are most related to desired outcomeacross different organizational settings.

In the text that follows, we: 1) outline the leadship behaviors included in the multifactor leadship theory, 2) present the results of a studydesigned to examine how the relative importaof these leadership behaviors change across diferent organ izational settings (military and meical) and across outcomes such as team

potency/efficacy, team cohesion, and job perfoance, and 3) presen t a leadership developm enttaxonomy (based on the results of the currentstudy and a review of best practices) designedaide practitioners in the development and chanprocess.

Multifactor Leadership Theory

The multifactor leadership theory developed bBass (1985) has received a great deal of theoretand empirical attention over the past nearly thdecades (Bass Avolio, 2000; Judge Piccolo,2004; Lowe, Kroeck, Sivasub ramaniam, 1996This popularity is due, in part, to three primarfactors. First, the model of leadership introdu

by Bass encompasses a broad range of leader


4/17

behaviors including transformational, transaction-al, and non -leadersh ip (or laissez-faire). Second,the scientific literature has generated substantialsupport for the major tenets of the theory (cf..House Shamir, 1993, How ell Avolio, 1993;Kirkbride, 2006; Lowe et al., 1996). Third, this

approach to leadership clearly focuses on behav-iors that can be developed through training andlearning (Parry Sinha, 2005) and these behav -iors have been linked to impo rtant ind ividual,group, and organization level outcomes (HaterBass, 1988; Howell Avolio, 1993; Lowe et al.,1996; Waldman, Bass, Yammarino, 1990). Forexample, Lowe et al. (1996) presen ted meta-ana-lytic evidence demonstrating that transformafion-al leadership was related to subjective and objec-five rafings of leadership effectiveness with cor-rected correlations of .73 and .30, respecfively.Additionally, prior research has demonstratedthat transformational leadership impacts creativi-ty and innovation (Avolio et al., 1999) and com-mitment (Bass Riggio, 2006). Finally, Dvir,Eden, Avolio, and Shamir (2002) presented evi-

dence suggesting that transformational leadershipresulted in better unit performance relafive togroup s that did not receive transformational lead-ership train ing. In the following text, each of thefactors included in the MLT will be discussed.

Transformational leadership. Transformationalleaders are described as being capable of m otivat-ing followers to transcend their self-interests toaccomplish collective goals (Bass, 1985).Transformational leadership includes four distinctfactors: ide lized influence inspir tion l motivationintellectu l stimulation nd individu lized considera-tion (Bass Avolio, 2000). The ide lized influencefactor represents transformational behaviorsdirected at influencing followers' perceptions of

fhe leader as powerful, confident, and capable of

accomplishing stated goals, as well as leadbehaviors that are directed towards goal atment and developing a sense of mission amfollowers. Key behavio rs include demonsthigh levels of competence and the effecfivepower to enhance group performance (Kirk2006). The inspirational motivation factor foc

on behaviors directed towards energizing motivafing followers, such as communicafivision and mak ing emotional app eals that followers strive towards future goals.Inspirational behav iors include presentingmistic (yet attainable) visions for the futurecreafing a unified sense of mission and pu(Kirkbride, 2006). The intellectu l stimul tiontor focuses on encouraging followers to criexamine their assumpfions, values, and beleffect, the intellectual sfimulafion factor is as the degree to which leaders favor new wdoing things and encourage followers to dthe skills necessary to think through and sproblems for themselves. Finally, the individua

ized consider tion factor focuses on leaderbehaviors that are aimed at understandingneeds of individual followers and encourathem to develop to their full potential in thsuit of challenging goals (Avolio, Bass, Ju1999; Bass Avolio, 2000).

Transactional leadership. The notion of trational leadership grew^ out of the exchangetheories of leadership that dominated the lship literature until the 198O's. Bass (1985)defined fransactional leaders as leaders whtify the needs of their followers and engagexchange relationships with them based ontives to be m et. The high er ord er factor ofactional leadership includes: contingent rewaactive mana gement by exception and passive m

ment by exception. Contingent rew ard lead ers


5/17

aracterized by the exchange of rewards fromders to followers for accomplishing objectivesss Avolio, 1993). With this style of leader-p, the leader sets clear goals and objectives andarly specifies what rewards (financial or non-ancial) can be expected for achiev ing goals.h ctive an d passive management by exception are

aracterized by the use of discipline to correctdesired behavior from followers. The differ-ce between the two approaches becomes appar-when one considers the m onitoring patte rn ofleader. Active managem ent by exception is

aracterized by the leader s continued observa-n of followers to en sure that agreed upon stan-rds of performance are met (Antonakis et al.,03). In contiast, passive ma nagem ent by excep-n leaders only intervene w^hen mistakes haveeady occurred (Antonak is et al., 2003).

n Leadership. The last leadership factorluded in the MLT is actually a non-leadershiptor, which is labeled laissez-faire lead ersh ip.is style of leadership is characterized by thesence of transformational or transactional lead-hip and a lack of interaction betw^een leader

d follower. In essence, this type of leade rsh ipuld be characterized by leaders who avoidking decisions and w ho fail to take interest

d responsibility in the growth of their unit,partment, or organization (Kirkbride, 2006).

summary, there are eight factors represented incurrent form of the m ultifactor leade rship the-. Bass (1985; Bass Avolio, 1993) suggests thath transformational and transactional leader

haviors are necessary to effectively perform as ader. Furthermore, Bass (1985) argued thatnsformational leadership behaviors augmenttransactional leader behaviors in predicting

anizational outcomes. Several studies support

this proposition. For instance, there is evidencthat transactional leadership behaviors lead toeffective leadership (Hater Bass, 1988; Waldmet al., 1990). Prior research also dem onstia tes after controlling for the effects of transactionalleadership, transformational leadership behaviaccount for incremental variance in ratings ofleader effectiveness (Hater Bass, 1988) and saisfaction with the leader Podsakof, MacKenzie,Moorman, Fetter, 1990). Additionally, theresults of a meta-analytic investigation of theMLT, conducted by Lowe et al. (1996), suggestethat the same leader might exhibit behaviors aciated with transactional and transformationalleadership, which is consistent with the theorypostulated by Bass (1985). This meta-analysis demonstrates that both types of leadership areassociated with leader effectiveness.

JVIethod

To examine how leader behaviors change inimportance across different criteria and organitional contexts, we reanalyzed the correlationmatrices from two published studies using tworelative importance indices that are increasinglbeing used in the organizational science literatDom inance Analysis and Relative WeightsAnalysis - both of which are intioduced in modetail in the da ta analysis section below. The uof these relative importance statistics is becom

more common in the organizational sciences (cBaltes, Parker, Young, Huff, Altinann, 2004;LeBreton, Ployhart, Ladd, 2001). These datasets were chosen because: (1) these two dataseallow u s to examine the relative importance offactors and sub-factors included in the MLTacross diverse samples (military vs. registerednurses) and performance criteria, and (2) the v

ables, as a group, explained a significant and


6/17

practical amount of variance in meaningfuldepend ent variables. These selection criteria areconsistent with the selecfion criteria utilized inother recent studies examining the relative impor-ance of variables in the organizational sciences

(cf.. Baltes et al., 2004; LeBreton et al., 2007).

Data Set : The first data set came from a studyconducted by Bass, Avolio, Jung, and Berson(2003) who examined the impact of transforma-tional and transacfional leader behaviors on twoteam outcom es: team potency/efficacy (represen t-ing the general belief that the team can successful-ly perform its mission) and team cohesion (repre-senting whether team mem bers pulled together toaccomplish tasks). The authors addressed theirquesfion using a sample of 78 platoon leaders andtheir direct reports.

t Set 2 : The second data set came from astudy conducted by Bycio, Hackett, and Allen(1995). These authors utilized a sample of nurses(N 1,376 to examine the impact of transforma-ional and transacfional leadership behaviors oneader effectiveness and extra effort from employ-

ees.

Data Analysis Relative Importance Indices

ohnson (2000, p. 2) defines relative importance asthe contribufion each variable makes to the pre-

diction of a dependent variable considering bothts unique contribution and its contribution whenombined with other variab les. Traditionally, aumber of stafisfics (e.g., squared correlafions andeta weights) have been used to evaluate predic-or impo rtance. While each of these meth ods ha strengths, they fail to consider the joint effects onhe criterion shared by two or more correlated

redictors (Johnson & LeBreton, 2004).

Darlington (1968) notes that most measurespredictor importance are often misleading variables are co rrelated, wh ich is often the the organizational sciences (LeBreton et al., This is very useful when considering the Mbecause transactional leadership and transftional leadership behaviors are often highlylated. For instance, Bycio, Hackett, and Al(1995) presented evidence demonstrafing thcontingent reward behaviors usually correlstrongly with transformational b ehaviors wintercorrelations rang ing from .63 to .70.Furthe rmore, Lowe et al. (1996) repo rted unrected correlations between the transformatfactors th at ran ged in ma gn itud e from .68 t

To overcome these lim itations, two stafisticapproaches have been introduced: dominananalysis (Budescu, 1993) and relative weighanalysis (Johnson, 2000). These stafisfics hrecently been used in the organizafional sciliterature in areas ranging from employee sfion (Van Iddeking e & Ployhart, 2008) to unstanding percepfions of fairness (Schleicher 2006). For exam ple, LeBreton et al. (2007) aVan Iddekinge and Ployhart (2008) bo th utirelative imp ortance indices to examine whiemployee selecfion tests best predicted job formance. Addifionally, Schleicher et al. (20utilized relative importance indices to examhow selection procedures that provided theopportunity to perform job related tasks poly influenced subsequent applicant reactionthe organizafion. Finally, Behson (2005) demstrated, via dominance analysis, that certainageme nt practices (e.g., supervisory suppo rautonomy, etc.) predicted a number of impooutcom es such as job safisfaction, wo rk streand intenfions to quit. While relative impo

indices have been used to examine a num b


7/17

anizationally valuable activities, litfle (if any)earch has u sed these statistics within a leader-p context.

minance Analysis Dom inance analysis wasigned to furnish estimates of predictor impor-ce in the presence of co rrelated predic tors.minance analysis provides a measure of theative importance of m ultiple p redicto rs bymputing the mean squared semi-partial correla-n across all possible subset regressionsudescu, 1993). That is, for each variable, theminance weigh t represents the average useful-s of a predictor across all subset regressiondels. These dominance weights are then usedrank-order the predictors in terms of their rela-e importance. Statistically, for each var iable (j),

general dominance weight is calculated (Cj)d this weight represen ts the average useful-s of a variable across all subset regressions

zen Budescu, 2003). Thus, dominance analy-furnishes an index of relative importanceed on a variable's direct effect (i.e., when con-

ered by itself), total effect (i.e., conditional onother predictors ), and partial effect (i.e., condi-nal on all subsets of predic tors ) (Budescu,93, p. 544). Furthermore, general dominancealysis examines patte rns of a predictor's dom i-nce, which can be used to determine the specifpattern of a variable's relative impo rtanceoss regression models. Full dom inance occurs

en a variable is consistently m ore imp ortan tn any other va riable across all subset regres-ns.

ative Weights Analysis The second method.lative Weights Analys is (Johnson, 2000), pro-es a measu re of the relative im portance ofltiple predictors by using a principal com po-

nts approach to create a new set of uncorrelated

predictors that are maximally correlated with original set of predictors yet are orthogonal(uncorrelated) to one another. The criterion vaables are then regressed on the transformed prdictors yielding s tanda rdized regression coefficients. These coefficients are then squared andcombined with the squared standardized regresion coefficients to calculate importance estima

Both methods provide estimates of predictorimportance based on the proportion of the moR- that can be attributed to each indepe ndent dictor. Furthermore, all of these independentcomponents add up to the model R^. Becausethese methods provide estimates of importancthat sum to the model R^, it is possible to evalpredictors using the metric of their proportioncontribution to the model R^. Additionally, it ipossible to calculate rescaled relative importanestimates for both dominance and relativeweights by dividing each raw estimate by themodel R^. These rescaled importance estimates in

cate the percentage of total explained variance

contributed by each independent predictor, whis a helpful method to communicate results.

Results

Bass et al. (2003) examined the predictive validof transformational and transactional leadershbehav iors of platoon leaders for ratings of unit

potency (i.e., group efficacy), unit cohesion, antask performance by examining data collectedfrom 72 platoon leaders. When consideringunit/team potency (see Table 1), which represethe belief that the team can carry out the missisuccessfully, our data indicate that transformational leadership behaviors are most importan(ranked #1) and account for approximately 42%

the predicted variance and transactional leade


8/17

Table 1

Dependent Variable = Platoon Potency (R^ = .18)

r j Y

0.410.37

-0.37

j

0.280.04

-0.13

R S - C J

0.420.28

0.30

T

12

2

2 j2

13

2

C j

13

2

Importance Estimates Relative Rank ings

Variables

Transformational LeadershipTransactional Leadership

MBE/Passive Leadership

Totals 1.00

Dominance Results: Platoon Leader TF >D> Platoon Leader PA, Platoon Leader TA

Note: Data are from the Platoon Leader Sample described in Bass et al. (2003). rry zero order correlation; j dardized regression coefficient; RS-Cj rescaled (RS) importance estimate, whicr\ is calculated by dividing thenance weight (Cj) by model R^. RS-Cj can be interpreted as the percentage of total explained variance contribeach predictor.

Table 2

Dependent Variable = Platoon Cohesion (R^ = .25)Importance Estimates Relative Rankings

Variables TTX, j RS-Cj rjy ^ j2 C j

Transformational Leadersh ip 0.48 0.26 0.39 1 1 1

Transactional Leadership 0.46 0.15 0.33 2 2 2

MBE/Passive Leadership -0.43 -0.11 0.28 3 3 3

Totals 1.00Dominance Results: Platoon Leader TF >D> Platoon Leader TA >D> Platoon Leader PA

Note: Data are from the Platoon Leader Sample described in Bass et al. (2003). rjy zero order correlation; i dard ized regression coefficient; RS-Cj rescaled (RS) imp ortance estmate, which is calculated by d ividing theance we ight (Cj) by mod el R^. RS-Cj can be interpre ted as the percentage of total explained variance contriach predictor.


9/17

hip behaviors an d man agem ent by exceptionccount for 28 and 30 of the variance, respec-vely. With regard to team potency, transforma-onal leadersh ip fully dom inates transactionaleadership behaviors and management by excep-on. However, if we were just looking at the

andardized regression weights as our indicatorf importance (which is a comm on practice in therganizational sciences and deve lopm ent litera-

ure), we would likely make the attribution that aelationship w ith a .04 mag nitude is practicallynsignificant. However, when considered with

more appropriate importance indices, this vari-ble actually accounts for a significant nd mean-

ngful amount of variance.

When considering team cohesion (see Table 2),ansformafional leadership fully dominates

management by excepfion/passive leadershipehaviors. More specifically, transformationaladership accounts for 39 of predicted vari-

nce followed by 33 for transactional and 28

for managemenf by excepfion. Finally, in fermof performance during a full-scale training excise (see Table 3), transform ational leadersh ipbehaviors became relatively less important.More specifically, transactional behaviors accfor 36 of predicted variance and passive lea

ship/management by exception accounted for33 of predicted variance. Both variables fulldominated transformafional leadership, whicaccounts for 31 of predicted variance.However, by examining the re-scaled importaestimates (which reflect percentages) we see teach variable accounts for roughly equal portof predicted variance.

The Bycio et al. (1995) stud y allows us to lookthe relative effectiveness of the sub-factors of MLT across different criteria (i.e., leader effec-tiveness and extra effort fiom employees). Aspresented in Table 4, idealized influence (orcharisma) was the most important predictor wregard to leader effectiveness accounting for 41

ble 3

ependent Variable = Platoon Performance (R^ = .11 )

Importance Estimates

Variables

ansformational Leadership

ansactional LeadershipBE/Passive Leadership

RS-C

0.30 0.06 0.31

0.31 0.16 0.36-0.30 -0.14 0.33

Relative Rankings

2 3 3

1 1 12 2 2

otals 1.00

ominance Results: Platoon Leader TA, Platoon Leader PA >D> P latoon Leader TF

ote: Data are from the Platoon Leader Sample described in Bass et al. (2003). rw zero order correlation; j stardized regression coefficient; RS-CT rescaled (RS) importance estimate, whicli is calculated by dividing the dnce weigh t (Cj) by m ode l R^. RS-Cj can be interpreted as the percentage of total explained variance contribu

ch predictor.


10/17

Table 4Dependent Variable = Leader Effectiveness (R = .41)

Importance Estimates Relative Rankings

Variables

Transformational Factors

Idealized InfluenceIndividualized Consideration

Intellectual Stimulation

Transactional Leadership

Contingent Reward

Management-by-Exception

RS-C

0.63 0.57 0.410.56 0.15 0.25

0.51 -0.03 0.18

0.42 -0.07 0.11

-0.26 -0.04 0.05

4

5

4

5

3

4

5

otals 1.00

Do min ance Results: Idealized Influence >D> Indiv idua lized Co nside ration >D> Managem ent-by-ontingent Reward, Intellectual Stimulation

Note: Data are from Bycio et al. (1995). rjy zero order correlation; j = standardized regression coefficient; RSescaled (RS) importance estimate, which is calculated by dividing the dominance weight (G) by model R^. e interpreted as the percentage of total explained variance contributed by each predictor.

of the predicted variance. Individualized consid-eration was the second most important variable inpredicting leader effectiveness accounting for 25of the pred icted variance. Taken together, thesetwo variables accounted for a combined 66 ofpredicted variance in the criterion (41 and 25 ,respecfively). Contingent reward, management-by-exception, and intellectual stimulation weremuch less important, accounting for 18 or lessof predicted variance.

In term s of extra effort (see Table 5), again, ideal-zed influence was the most important predictor

variable (ranked 1 and accounting for 32 ofpredicted variance). Intellectual stimulation washe second most important variable accountingor 27 of the predicted variance in extra effort.

Contingent reward and individualized considera-

ion both accounted for 18 of predicted vari-

ance, but contingent reward dominated indalized conside ration. One of the most intefindings here relates to individualized constion. Examining the regression we ight (or dardized beta weight) it appears th at indivized consideration is not important (see TabHowever, relative weights analysis suggestit actually accounts for 18 of the predic teance and is tied with con tingent reward leship in terms of predictor impo rtance.

Discussion

Taken as a whole, the results from the currstudy clearly indicate that transformationalership behaviors are critically im portan t wconsidering team cohesion and team potenccacy (Data Set 1) and leader effectiveness (Set 2). While transformational leadership is


11/17

portant with regard to actual task performanced extra effort, transactional leadership behav-rs (parficularly confingent reward styles)come more salient. This finding is consistentross both data sets with confingent reward

yles of leadersh ip accounting for 36 of theriance in Data Set (see Table 3) and 18 of theriance in Data Set 2 (see Table 5).

hus, across samples and criteria, our results fur-er buttress the major assertions of the MLT andearly indicate that effective leaders need to havefull range of leader beha vio rs to dra w from. Forstance, in building team cohesion and team effi-cy, transformational behav iors a ppear most

mportant. However, during training activifiesrected at improving specific task performance.

able 5

e pen den t Va riable = Ex tra Effort (R^ = .72)

transacfional behaviors take the forefront. Weobserved this pattern of relafionships across bsamples used in this study.

From a practical standpoint, the results of therent study have implications for leadership tring and deve lopment program s. The results othis study provide more information regardinthe impact that contextual factors have on shaing leadership processes. Addifionally, througthe use of dom inance analysis, the results infous which factors are most important for prediing outcomes in a particular context. Given thtraining time is expensive, this last piece of inmation could really facilitate the developmenttraining protocols geared towards developingleaders for specific contexts.

ariables

ransformational Factors

Idealized Influence

Individual ized Considerat ion

Intellectual Stimulation

ransactional Leadership

Confirigent Reward

Management-by-Except ion

otals

ominance Resu lts: Idealize d Influence

Impor tance

0.82

0.70

0.78

0.68

-0.33

0.46

0.00

0.27

0.16

-0.06

>D> Intellectual

Estimates

RS-Cj

0.32

0.18

0.27

0.18

0.04

1.00Stimulation

Relative

3

2

4

5

1

5

2

3

4

Rankings

1

4

2

3

5

>D> Contingent R ew ard >D>

ndividualized Consideration, M anagem ent-by-Exception

Bycio et al. (1995). rjy = zero o rder correlation; j = standardized regression coefficient; RS-timate, which is calculated by d ividing the d ominance w eight (Cj) by model R^. RS-Cj can b

ote: Data are from 'RS) importance estima te,

the percentage of total explained variance contributed by each predictor.


12/17

Leadership Development Best Practices

Partly due to the recognition of the value thateffective leadership has on organizational per-formance and partly due to a shrinking talentpool as a result of baby-boom generation retire-

ments and falling birthrates, organizations aredirecting greater resources into leadership devel-opm ent (Avolio, Avey & Quisenberry, 2010;Fulmer, 1997; Riggio, 2008). Indeed, in the 2009BusinessWeek.com and Hay Group's BestCompanies for Leadership Survey, the 20 mostsuccessful companies placed a premium on select-ng, developing, and retaining effective leaders at

every organizational level. As a consequence,eadership developmen t is viewed as a growth

area for organizational consultants.

While there are clearly many different means todeveloping leadersh ip, effective leadersh ip devel-opment has more to do with the quality of theoverall design, integration, and consistent imple-mentation than w ith the actual choice of the rele-vant components (Day, 2001; Day Halpin, 2001;McCauley, Velsor, Ruderman, 2010). Onerecent approach that reflects the increasingly criti-cal and strategic imperative for op timal organiza-tional effectiveness is the emergence of best prac-tices with regard to leader and leadership devel-opm ent. Yet, a review of the literature shows thatthere is little consensus in the field on what con-

stitutes best practices and how such aspirationalbenchmarks are applied in business organizations(Haskins & Shaffer, 2009). Nonetheless, a numberof key components of effective leadership devel-opment are noted below:

Aligning leadership compe tencies withbusiness strategy

Fostering innovation, creativity, andcontinuous improvement

Recruiting, identifying and deve lopifuture talent and succession

Executing and prom oting organizatistrategy and change

Building customer and em ployee loy

Engaging in a suppo rtive organizati

culture Eva luating the efficacy of leadersh ip

development initiatives and program

Although this study represents a useful extof previous research, there are research quethat remain unad dress ed. For example, therent study, as well as the previous investigaexamining the impact of context on the leaprocess, has only considered one variable atime. Given that hu m an behavior is determby multiple elements, a useful area for futuresearch would be to examine the impact otiple contextual variables concurrently.Additionally, most of the research examinintransformational leadership process has focon the positive outcomes associated with trmational leader behaviors. While this workincredibly useful, it does not consider the cof this behav ior. Thus, another area of futuresearch could explore the various intraindcauses (e.g., personality, m otivation, valuestransforming behaviors.

References

Antonak is, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubram aniN. (2003). Context and leadership: aexamination of the nine-factor full-rleadership theory using the MultifaLeadership Questionnaire. eadership uarterly 14, 261-295.


13/17

olio, B. J., Avey, J. B., Q uis en be rry , D. (2010).

Est imating return on leadership

development inves tment . Leadership

Quarterly 21(4), 633-644.

olio, B. J., Ba ss, B. M ., Ju ng , D. I. (1999). Re -

examining the components of

transformational and transact ional

leadership using the Mult i factor

Leadersh ip Ques t ionnai re , journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology

71 441-462.

ltes, B. B., Par ke r, C . R, Y ou ng , L. M., Huff J.,

Altmann, R. (2004). The practical utility of

importance measures in assessing the

relat ive im porta nce of wo rk related

percept ions and organizat ional

characteristics on work related

outcomes . Organizational Research

Methods 7 326-340.

rling, J., W eber, T., Ke llow ay, E. K. (1996).

Effects of transformational leadership

training on attitudinal and financial

outcomes: A field experim ent , journal of

Applied Psychology 81, 827-832.

ss, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance

beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

ss, B. M. (1997). Do es th e trans actio nal-tra ns-

format iona l leadersh ip paradigm

transcend organizat ional and nat ional

boundar ies? American Psychologist 52,

130-139.

ss, B. M., Av olio, B. J. (1993).Transformational leadership: A response to

cri tiques. In M. M. Ch em ers R. Ay ma n

(Eds.), Leadership theory and research:

Perspectives and directions (pp. 49-80). San

Diego: Academic Press .

Bass , B. M., Av olio, B. J. (1994). Improving

organizational effectiveness through

transformational leadership. Thousand

Oaks , CA: Sage.

Bass, B. M., Av olio, B. J. (2000). Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire Manual. Palo Al

CA: Mindspr ing .

Bass, B. M., Av olio, B. J., Ju ng , D. I., Berson,Y

(2003). Predicting unit performance by

assessing t ransformational and

transact ional leadersh ip, journal of Appli

Psychology 88, 207-218.

Bass, B. M., Rig gio, R. E. (2006).

Transformational leadership (2nd ed).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Behson, S.J. (2005). The relative contribution o

formal and informal organizational

work-family support , journal of Vocationa

ehavior 66, 487-500.

Bolt, J. F. (2007). Mapping the future of leaders

de ve lop m en t. In J. F. Bolt (Ed.), The 2007

Pfeiffer annual: Leadership development

(pp. 3-23). San Francisco, CA: W iley

Bono, J.E., Ju dg e, T.A. (2004). Perso nality an d


leadership: A meta-analysis . journal of

Applied Psychology 89, 901-910.

Bude scu, D. V. 1993. Do min ance analysis: A n e

approach to the problem of relative

impo rtance of predictors in m ult iple

regression. Psychological Bulletin 114: 542

551.

Buss, I. (2005). The evolution of leadership

development: Chal lenges and best

practices. Industrial and ommercial

Training 37(4),185-188.


14/17

Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., Allen, J.S. (1995).Further assessments of Bass's (1985)conceptualization of transactional andtransformafional leadership. Journal ofApplied Psychology 80, 468-478.

Carter, L., Ulrich, D., Goldsmith, M . (2005).

Best Practices in leadership development andorganization change. San Francisco: John

Wiley Sons.Darlington, R. B. (1968). Mulfiple regress ion in

psychological research and pracfice.Psychological B ulletin 69, 161-182.

Day, D. V. (2001). Leadersh ip deve lopm ent: Areview in context. Leadership Quarterly11(4), 581-613.

Da y D. V., Halpin, S. M. (2001). Leadershipdevelopment: A review of industry bestpractices. Alexandria, VA: U. S. Arm yResearch Institute for the Behavioral andSocial Sciences.

Den Hartog, D. N., House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A., Dorfman, PW.,GLOBE Associates. (1999). Culture specificand cross-culturally generalizable implicitleadership theories: Are attributes ofcharismafic/transformafional leadershipuniversally endorsed? The LeadershipQuarterly 10, 219-256.

Dvir, T., Eden, D ., Avolio, B.J., Shamir, B. (2002).Impact of transformational leadership onfollower development and performance: Afield experiment. cademy of Managem entJournal 45, 735-744.

Fulmer, R. M. (1997). The evolving parad igm ofleadership development. OrganizationalDynamics 25(4), 59-72.

Haskins, M., Shaffer, G. (2009). Partnering withyour leadership dev elopment provider: 12best practices. Strategic H R Review 8(6),28-32.

Hater, J. J., Bass, B. M. (1988). Superv isorevaluations and su bord inates' perceof transformational and transactionaleadership. Journal of pplied Psycho73, 695-702.

Hernez-Broom e, G., Hu ghe s, R. L. (2004)Leadership developmen t: Past, preseand future. Human Resource Planning27(1), 24-33.

Ho use , R.J., Sham ir, B. (1993). Toward theintegration of transformafional,charismatic, and visionary theories.Leadership theory and research: Perspecti

and directions (pp. 81-107). New YoAcademic Press.

How ell, J. M., Avolio, B. J. (1993).Transformational leadership, transacleadership, locus of control, and supfor innovafion: Key predictors of condated-business-unit performance. Jouof Applied Psychology 78, 891-902.

Hsieh, T. (2010). Delivering happiness: A path

profits passion and purpose. New York

NY: Business P lus.Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heurisfic mefhod fo

estimating the relative weight of prevariables in multiple regression.Multivariate Behavioral Research 35,1

Johnson, J. W., LeBreton, J. M. (2004). Hisand use of relative importance indicorganizational research. OrganizationaResearch Methods 7 238-257.

Judge, T A., Piccolo, R. (2004).Transformational and transactionalleadersh ip: A meta-analyfic test of trelafive validity. Journal of AppliedPsychology 89, 755-768.


15/17

dge, T A., Picco lo, R. F., Hies, R. (2004). Th e

forgotten ones?: A re-examination of

considerat ion, ini t ia t ing s tructure, and

leadership effectiveness. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 89, 36-51.

rkbride, P. (2006). De velo ping transf orm ation al

leaders: The full ran ge lead ership mo del in

action. Industrial and Com mercial Training,

38, 23-32.

moureux, K. (2008). Developing leaders.

Leadership Excellence, 25(7), 11-12.

Breton, J. M., Ha rg is, M . B., G rie pe nti og , B.,

Osw ald, F. L., Plo yh art, R. E. (2007). A

mult idimensional approach for evaluat ing

variables in organizat ional research and

practice. Personnel Psychology, 60, 475-498.

Breton, J.M., Pl oy ha rt, R.W., L ad d, R.T.

(2004). A M on te Carlo com par ison of

relat ive importance methodologies .

Organizational Research Methods, 7, 258-282.

rd, R.G., Br ow n, D.J., H ar v ey J.L., Ha ll, R.J.

(2001). Contextual constraints on

prototype generat ion and their mult i level

consequences for leadership percept ions.

The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 311-338.

rd, R.G., Fo ti, R.J., De V ade r, C.L. (1984). A

test of leade rship categorizat ion theory:

Internal s t ructure, information processing,

and leadersh ip percept ions . Organizational

ehavior and Human Performance, 34, 343 -

. 378.

we, K. B., G ard ne r, W.L. (2001). Ten ye ars ofThe Leadersh ip Q uar te r ly : C ont r ibut ions

and challenges for the future. Leadership

Quarterly, 1 1, 459-514.

Low e, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., Siv asu bra m ania m

N . (1996). Effectiveness correlates of


leadersh ip: A meta-analyt ic review of t

l i terature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 38

425.

M cC au ley C. D., Velsor, E. V., R ud erm an , M

(2010). Introduct ion: Our view of

leadership development . In C. McCaule

E. Velsor, M. Ru de rm an (Eds.), The

Center for Creative Leadership Handbook o

Leadership Development (pp . 1-26 . San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

N ortho use, PG . (2007). Leadership: Theory and

practice (4th ed.) . Tho usand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Pa rry K. W., Sinha, P (2005). Re searc hing the

trainability of transformational

organisat ional leadership. Human Resour

Developm ent International, 8 ,165-183.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, D. B., M oorm an, R

H., Fetter, R. (1990). Trans form ationa

leader behaviors and their effects on

followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, an

organizat ional ci t izenship behav iors .

Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.

Riggio, R. E. (2008). Leadership development:

The current state and future expectation

Consulting Psychology Journal Practice

Research, 60(4), 383-392.

Schleicher, D. J., Venk atara m ani, V., M org eso n,

Ca mp ion, M. (2006). So you did n't ge

the job . . .Now wh at do you th ink?

Examining opportuni ty- to-perform

fairness perceptions. Personnel Psycholog

59, 559-590.


16/17

Shamir, B., Howell, J.M. (1999). Organizafionaland contextual influences on theemergence and effectiveness ofcharismatic leadership. LeadershipQuarterly 10, 257-283.

Van Iddekinge, C. H., Ployhart, R. E. (2008).

Developments in the criterion-relatedvalidation of selection procedures: Acritical review and recommendations forpractice. Personnel Psychology 61, 871-925.

Waldman, K. F., Bass, B. M., Yammarino, F. J.(1990). Adding to contingent rewardbehavior: The augmenting effect ofcharismafic leadersh ip. roup andOrganizational Studies 15, 381-394.

Zaccaro, S. J., Klimoski, R. J. (2001). The na tureof organizational leadership. In S.J.Zaccaro, R.J. Klimoski (Eds.), The natureof organizational leadership (pp. 3-41). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


17/17

Copyright of Organization Development Journal is the property of Organization Development Institute and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

Hargis Developin Leaders