week 5 HR post .2

timer Asked: Mar 29th, 2017
account_balance_wallet $10

Question Description

Hello, please the below:

  1. Read the article “The Role of Collective Efficacy in the Relations between Transformational Leadership and Work Outcomes” via the following link: http://tinyurl.com/psajuph
  2. Read the article “Leader-Member Exchange as a Mediator of the Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Followers’ Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behavior” via the following link: http://tinyurl.com/ouzwwa8
  3. Respond to the following questions based on Netflix:
    1. Leadership:-Transformational Leadership.
      1. Synthesize views of transformational leadership theory from classical leadership research with your own experience to articulate a personal worldview perspective.
      2. Describe the human resource management implications arising from your personal worldview perspective of transformational leadership theory.
      3. Note: A synthesis is a combination of independent parts into a whole. For this section of your discussion forum, include one or more concepts from each of the two required leadership article readings, add in your personal perspective based on your understanding or experience of the leadership topic, and then provide one or more HR implications that could result from the synthesis.
    2. Integration of Faith and Learning.
      1. Review the 5.1 Devotional and Scripture reading.
      2. Relate the story of Jethro and Moses and those reorganized to serve Moses to your own experience by sharing to whom you have turned to find help in strengthening your own leadership capabilities?
      3. Identify the leadership lessons that can be learned from the Scripture reading and how these might be incorporated in the workplace.
  4. Provide a detailed post that demonstrates clear, insightful critical thinking. Your initial posting should be 200-300 words long.
  5. Your initial posting is to include, at a minimum, two sources properly cited and referenced, which may be the two required reading journal articles.

Info on Netflix:


娀 Academy of Management Journal 2005, Vol. 48, No. 3, 420–432. LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE AS A MEDIATOR OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND FOLLOWERS’ PERFORMANCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR HUI WANG Peking University KENNETH S. LAW Hong Kong University of Science and Technology RICK D. HACKETT McMaster University DUANXU WANG Zhejiang University ZHEN XIONG CHEN University of Canberra We developed a model in which leader-member exchange mediated between perceived transformational leadership behaviors and followers’ task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors. Our sample comprised 162 leader-follower dyads within organizations situated throughout the People’s Republic of China. We showed that leader-member exchange fully mediated between transformational leadership and task performance as well as organizational citizenship behaviors. Implications for the theory and practice of leadership are discussed, and future research directions offered. There have been several calls for a theoretical integration of the transformational leadership and LMX literatures (Avolio, Sosik, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999). In this study, we attempted such integration. Howell and HallMerenda (1999) contended that in leadership research, a relationship of some sort between leader and follower is assumed, and it is further assumed that the nature and quality of that relationship are fundamental to linking leader behavior to follower response. Stated alternatively, the assumption has been that it is the quality of the leader-follower relationship through which transformational leadership behaviors influence follower performance. Consistently with this reasoning, we developed and tested a structural model in which LMX mediates between perceived transformational leadership behavior and follower performance (task performance and reported organizational citizenship behavior). Two contrasting perspectives on leadership in organizations are prevalent in the academic and applied literatures. The first is leader-focused and attempts to explain individual, group, and organizational performance outcomes by identifying and examining specific leader behaviors directly related to them. This viewpoint is exemplified by theories of transformational leadership (e.g., Bass, 1985). The second perspective is more relationship-based, focusing explicitly on how one-on-one reciprocal social exchanges between leader and follower evolve, nurture, and sustain the dyadic relationship. This approach is best exemplified by leader-member-exchange (LMX) theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Although transformational leadership approaches concentrate predominantly on leader behaviors unilaterally directed toward subordinates, the mainstay of LMX research has been studying two-way, reciprocal exchanges between leader and follower. We gratefully acknowledge the suggestions of Peter Bycio (Xavier University) and the comments of Aaron Schat and Willi Wiesner (McMaster University) on early drafts of this article. We also thank this journal’s three anonymous reviewers of our paper for the thoroughness of the feedback and direction they provided. THEORY AND HYPOTHESES Transformational Leadership The behaviors most commonly associated with transformational leadership include articulating a 420 2005 Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, and Chen compelling vision of the future of an organization; offering a model consistent with that vision; fostering the acceptance of group goals; and providing individualized support, intellectual stimulation, and high performance expectations. Positive relationships have been consistently reported between individual, group, and organizational performance and the ratings followers give their leaders on these transformational leadership behaviors. Typically, these findings have been explained as showing that leader behaviors cause basic values, beliefs, and attitudes of followers to align with organizational collective interests (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Transformational leadership and task performance. One theoretical basis for expecting positive associations between transformational leadership and task performance is Kelman’s (1958) typology of social influence processes. Personal identification and internalization are two of them. Specifically, when followers attribute exceptionally strong positive qualities, such as the ability to articulate visions, to a transformational leader, personal identification has occurred. They internalize their leader’s values and beliefs and behave consistently with them, including putting collective interests over self-interests. In so doing, they receive leader praise and recognition. These in turn nourish the follower’s sense of self-worth and felt obligation to reciprocate, thereby motivating behaviors that serve this obligation (e.g., Bass, 1985; Yukl, 2002). An alternative, but closely related, reason to expect positive associations between transformational leadership and task performance is the process of social identification. By means of social identification, which derives from followers taking pride in being part of a group or organization, followers come to view their individual efforts and work roles as contributing to a larger collective cause. This perspective enhances the personal meaningfulness and importance of their work. By emphasizing the ideological importance of an inspirational and unifying vision, and by linking the followers’ self-concepts to this vision, transformational leaders build the social identification and self-concepts of their followers. Internalization of the beliefs and values of a leader in such an instance is driven less by a desire to emulate the leader and more by the desire to identify with a collective cause (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Behaving in ways that express the values and beliefs of this social entity enhances a follower’s self-concept. The self-efficacy of followers is strengthened when transformational leaders express confidence in their abilities and celebrate their accomplishments. A positive association be- 421 tween transformational leadership and followers’ task performance has received considerable empirical support (cf. Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Transformational leadership and OCB. Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is behavior, largely discretionary, and seldom included in formal job descriptions, that supports task performance by enhancing a social and psychological work environment. Transformational leaders motivate followers by getting them to internalize and prioritize a larger collective cause over individual interests. Individuals who are intrinsically motivated to fulfill a collective vision without expecting immediate personal and tangible gains may be inclined to contribute toward achieving the shared workplace goal in ways that their roles do not prescribe. These individuals make these contributions because their senses of self-worth and/or self-concepts are enhanced in making these contributions. Individuals for whom this link between the interests of self and others has not been established are less likely to make largely discretionary, nontangibly rewarded contributions. A positive association between transformational leadership and OCB is expected and has been supported empirically (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 1990). Leader-Member Exchange LMX theory is premised on notions of role making (Graen, 1976), social exchange, reciprocity, and equity (Deluga, 1994). Leaders convey role expectations to their followers and provide tangible and intangible rewards to followers who satisfy these expectations. Likewise, followers hold role expectations of their leaders, with respect to how they are to be treated and the rewards they are to receive for meeting leader expectations. Followers are not passive “role recipients”; they may either reject, embrace, or renegotiate roles prescribed by their leaders. There is a reciprocal process in the dyadic exchanges between leader and follower, wherein each party brings to the relationship different kinds of resources for exchange. Role negotiation occurs over time, defining the quality and maturity of a leader-member exchange, and leaders develop relationships of varying quality with different followers over time (Graen, 1976; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). LMX and task performance. Leaders exercising formal authority and allocating standard benefits in return for standard job performance characterize low-quality exchanges. The exchanges underlying these relationships are predominantly quid pro quo and “contractual.” In high-quality LMX relation- 422 Academy of Management Journal ships, however, social exchange is moved to a higher level, nourished by mutual trust, respect, and obligation (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). In return for exemplary performance contributions (e.g., consistently volunteering to work extra hours to meet project deadlines), followers receive special privileges (e.g., access to key personnel or information), career-enhancing opportunities (e.g., special work assignments), and increasing levels of discretion in doing their jobs. Accordingly, task performance is a form of currency in the social exchange between leader and follower, and a means of fulfilling obligations for reciprocity. Specifically, the positive affect, respect, loyalty, and felt obligation characteristic of high-quality LMX, according to Liden and Maslyn (1998), build as a result of favorable treatment by the leader, and are expressed by high task performance, which fulfils reciprocity expectations. Gerstner and Day (1997) reported metaanalytically derived correlations of .31 between LMX and supervisory ratings of performance and of .11 between LMX and objective measures of employee performance. Leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. In high-quality LMX relationships, obligations are often diffuse and unspecified, and no standard or value against which gifts, favors, or contributions can be measured is present (Blau, 1964). A positive association between LMX and OCB is expected because OCB helps fulfill the reciprocity obligations of followers, and represents an exchange currency that is diffuse, unspecified, and weakly time-bound. Moreover, in high-quality exchange, leaders appeal to the higher-order social needs of followers by getting them to place collective interests over short-term personal gratification (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). An individual’s being a “good citizen” promotes the welfare of the larger collective. Accordingly, LMX is expected to correlate positively with OCB. Support for this relationship was provided by Hackett, Farh, Song, and Lapierre (2003), who reported a meta-analytic mean correlation of .32 between LMX and overall OCB, leading them to conclude that OCB plays a key role in the reciprocal social exchange process of LMX. Studies of Both Transformational Leadership and Leader-Member Exchange Only three published studies have included measures of both transformational leadership and LMX (see Basu & Green, 1997; Deluga, 1992; Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999). Deluga (1992) argued that a transformational leader “catalyzes” conventional social exchanges, stimulating subordinates to sur- June pass initial performance goals and self-interests. More specifically, he provided empirical data suggesting that the heightened outcomes associated with transformational leadership result from the individualized dyadic relationship between a given subordinate and leader. Deluga noted that “transformational leaders may foster the formation of high quality relationships and a sense of a common fate with individual subordinates; while in a socialexchange process, subordinates strengthen and encourage the leader” (1992: 245). Reporting regression analyses of data from 145 U.S. Navy offices, Deluga (1992) wrote that individualized consideration and charisma were the only two transformational leadership factors that predicted LMX. These results suggest that it is a leader’s charisma and individualized consideration— both of which have been considered dyad-level influences (Seltzer & Bass, 1990)—that cause subordinates to behave in ways (such as making extra efforts) that strengthen relational ties with the leader. Basu and Green (1997) studied employees of a Fortune 500 manufacturing facility and factoranalyzed the employees’ responses to an 8-item measure of LMX and a 28-item measure of transformational leadership. Their analysis failed to distinguish LMX from intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration, which they interpreted to be consistent with viewing these two dimensions as intangible rewards (currency) within a dyadic social exchange. Howell and Hall-Merenda (1999) studied 109 community-banking managers. They collected subordinates’ ratings of these managers on both transformational leadership and leader-member exchange. The managers provided performance measures of subordinates approximately six months after the LMX measures were taken. Partial least squares analysis showed that within a predictor set consisting of LMX, transformational leadership, and three transactional leadership dimension scores, LMX was a significant predictor of follower performance, whereas transformational leadership was not. Specifically, the path from transformational leadership to performance failed to reach statistical significance when other leader behaviors and LMX were included in the model. These authors also found that of a predictor set consisting of transformational leadership and the three transactional leadership dimension scores, all were significant predictors of LMX, but the strongest was transformational leadership, followed by contingent rewards. Together, these results suggested a temporal path from transformational leadership to LMX and from LMX to follower performance. None of the three cited studies showed how 2005 Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, and Chen transformational leadership and LMX are related to each other and to work performance. Transformational leadership theories are still at early stages of specifying the developmental mediating processes between leader behavior and performance (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002). Our contribution in this study lies in explicitly testing a structural model that positions LMX as a mediator between transformational leadership and task performance/ organizational citizenship behavior. Although transformational leadership and LMX appear to overlap conceptually, we contend that transformational leadership comprises a set of leader behaviors that directly influence the development and maintenance of leader-member exchange relationships. The Mediating Role of Leader-Member Exchange The mediating role of LMX in the relationship between transformational leadership and task performance/OCB is premised on the notion that a high-quality LMX relationship reflects an affective bonding accompanied by largely unstated mutual expectations of reciprocity. Such a relationship evolves from a predominantly transactional exchange into a social exchange as mutual trust, respect, and loyalty are earned (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). We argue that transformational leadership builds and nourishes high-quality LMX. Findings by Dvir and coauthors (2002) suggest that follower development and the accompanying social bonding mediate the effects of transformational leadership behaviors on follower performance. They suggested this: “Perhaps a critical level of interaction with a transformational leader is indispensable for the impact of follower development to emerge” (Dvir et al., 2002: 742). Deluga (1992) argued that the heightened outcomes associated with transformational leadership result from the individualized dyadic relationship between a given subordinate and leader. LMX is said to develop through three sequential stages, “stranger,” “acquaintance,” and “partner,” each of which relies successively less on instrumental transactional exchange and more on social exchanges of a “transformational” kind (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). In the stranger stage, the leader “offers” modestly expanded role responsibilities and assesses whether the follower successfully fulfills them. Greater responsibilities, discretion, and benefits are given as the follower meets these successively expanded role responsibilities. The transformation characteristic of mature LMX relationships occurs when there is a shift in the motivation of followers from a desire to satisfy immediate self- 423 interests via a quid pro quo transactional exchange to a desire to satisfy longer-term and broader collective interests of the work unit. Moreover, transformational leaders, because of their charismatic appeal, are more effective than their purely transactional counterparts in enhancing follower receptivity to social exchange offers and thereby building higher-quality LMX. Transformational leaders are particularly effective in eliciting personal identification from their followers and getting them to accept offers of expanded role responsibilities. Followers with strong personal identification with their leaders enhance their sense of self-worth by internalizing their leaders’ values and beliefs and by behaving in accordance with them. In so doing, followers garner praise, recognition, and enriched role responsibilities, and these result in a higher quality of social exchange with their leaders. This process is consistent with the finding that transformational leadership encompasses an element of higher-order transactional leadership, reflecting leaders’ and followers’ internalized expectations of mutual trust and their reciprocal exchange obligations (Goodwin, Wofford, & Whittington, 2001). Most successful leaders effectively use transformational behaviors to create long-term loyalty and organizational commitment (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). We also believe that transformational leadership is “personalized” through LMX. Graen (1976) noted the importance of leadership behaviors in the rolemaking process of LMX, emphasizing the need for leaders to convey compelling and unifying organizational missions to get followers to identify their vocations within the ideologies of their organizations. It is through establishing high-quality relationships that leaders, by example and by treatment, convince followers that an organization deserves their commitment (Graen, 1976). Accordingly, transformational leaders may provide the broader cultural framework and facilitating conditions within which leader-member relationships are personalized in the LMX relationship-building process. As Avolio and his coauthors noted, “To ‘make sense’ of each follower’s future requires the leader to develop a relationship, whereby followers come to identify with the leader’s vision” (2003: 280). The leader-member exchange process provides for this relationship building. The preceding text suggests the following: Hypothesis 1. Transformational leadership is positively related to the task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors of followers. 424 Academy of Management Journal Hypothesis 2. Leader-member exchange relates positively to the task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors of followers. We hypothesized that OCB is also related to task performance. OCB is largely discretionary and typically not compensated. Individuals performing OCB tend also to show altruisism, organizational commitment, and conscientiousness (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002), variables positively related to task performance. Accordingly, it is reasonable to expect a positive correlation between OCB and task performance. OCB appears to have a significant influence on the in-role performance of employees, especially managers’ ratings of employee performance (Allen & Rush, 1998; Werner, 1994). Therefore, following an approach similar to that of Wayne, Shore, Bommer, and Tetrick (2002), we added a structural path from OCB to task performance to our model. Hypothesis 3. Leader-member exchange mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ task performance and organizational citizenship behavior. PILOT STUDY We conducted a pilot study to assess the psychometric characteristics of our translated LMX and transformational leadership measures on a Chinese sample. The sample for our pilot study consisted of 262 employees in a bank located in a major city in South China. The mean age of the respondents was 29 years; 46 percent were male; mean organizational tenure was 8 years; and mean postsecondary education was 3 years. We used the 12-item LMX-MDM (Liden & Maslyn, 1998), a multidimensional scale, rather than a unidimensional measure of leader-member exchange such as LMX-7 (Scandura & Graen, 1984). LMX-MDM has broader domain coverage and better reflects a subordinate’s evaluation of the relational characteristics and qualities of the leadersubordinate relationship than do unidimensional measures of LMX. Liden and Maslyn (1998) recommended use of the LMX-MDM in structural equation modeling in which LMX is a key variable, with each dimension serving as an indicator of global LMX. Since our data were collected from the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the LMX-MDM was translated from English into Chinese and then back-translated into English to ensure equivalency of meaning (Brislin, 1980). For all items the response format was 1, June “strongly disagree,” to 5, “strongly agree.” We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with LISREL 8.50 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2001) to test the four-dimensional structure of LMX-MDM. A fourfactor model, with an overall second-order factor, fitted our data reasonably well (␹2 ⫽ 74.92, df ⫽ 50; RMSEA ⫽ .05; CFI ⫽ .98; TLI ⫽ .97). The competing one-factor measurement model did not fit our data (␹2 ⫽ 310.39, df ⫽ 54; RMSEA ⫽ .15; CFI ⫽ .80; TLI ⫽ .75). Coefficient alpha was calculated for each of the four LMX dimensions (affect, loyalty, professional respect, and contribution); values were 82, .63, .86, and .80, respectively. Sample items in the dimensions are, “I like my supervisor very much” (affect), “My supervisor would defend me to others in the organization if I made an honest mistake” (loyalty), “I admire my supervisor’s professional skills” (professional respect), and “I do not mind working my hardest for my supervisor” (contribution). A 23-item scale developed by Podsakoff and his colleagues (1990), modified and translated into Chinese by Chen and Farh (1999), was used to measure perceived transformational leadership behaviors. The response scale (1, “strongly disagree,” to 5, “strongly agree”) was the same as that used for the LMX items. In contrast to the LMX-MDM’s focus on relational qualities of the leader-subordinate relationship, the Podsakoff et al. (1990) transformational leadership scale focuses on subordinates’ perceptions of their leaders’ behavior. Items included “My supervisor encourages subordinates to be team players” (fostering collaboration); “My supervisor behaves in a manner thoughtful of my personal needs” (providing individual support); “My supervisor leads by example” (providing an appropriate role model); “My supervisor challenges me to set high goals for myself” (high performance expectations); “My supervisor inspires others with his/her plans for the future” (articulating a vision); and “My supervisor challenges me to think about old problems in new ways” (intellectual stimulation). We performed a CFA to test whether the sixfactor model plus an overall second-order factor fitted our data. The results showed that the fit indexes fell within an acceptable range (␹2 ⫽ 477.18, df ⫽ 224; RMSEA ⫽ .08; CFI ⫽ .91; TLI ⫽ .90), suggesting that the model fitted the data reasonably well. The coefficients alpha of the six dimensions of transformational leadership were as follows: fostering collaboration (.85), intellectual stimulation (.84), providing an appropriate model (.87), high performance expectations (.73), articulating a vision (.90), and providing individual support (.87). 2005 Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, and Chen MAIN STUDY: METHODS Sample and Procedure Respondents for the main study used for testing our hypotheses were employees of multiple organizations in a major city located in northern China. Separate questionnaires were developed and administered to supervisors and subordinates. The supervisor questionnaires were first distributed to 119 supervisors/managers enrolled in several MBA classes offered by a premier Chinese university located in that city. The questionnaires for subordinates were distributed to 238 immediate subordinates of these supervisors. Each supervisor rated task performance and organizational citizenship behavior for two of his/her immediate subordinates, one who was performing well, and one who was performing poorly. Each subordinate completed the questionnaire with the transformational leadership and LMX-MDM scales. Respondents were assured of the confidentiality of responses. Completed surveys were returned directly to us in sealed and preaddressed envelopes. Because each subordinate provided ratings of both transformational leadership and LMX, common method variance in measuring leadership was a concern. To minimize this potential influence (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), we calculated the transformational leadership score of each supervisor as the mean of the ratings provided by each of the two subordinates. Accordingly, our data analyses were restricted to the supervisors for whom we had two independent subordinate ratings of transformational leadership (84 of 119 supervisors). After deleting the records of unmatched supervisor-subordinate pairs, we were left with 162 supervisor-subordinate dyads (81 supervisors, each with two ratings of transformational leadership). In addition to addressing, in part, our concern over common source variance in measuring our two key leadership constructs (such as common rater effects [Podsakoff et al., 2003]), taking the average crosssubordinate rating of transformational leadership was also consistent with how transformational leadership is typically viewed and measured: as a generalized behavioral approach of a leader to subordinates (House & Aditya, 1997; Yukl, 2002). Theoretically, a transformational leader applies his/her transformational leader behaviors to all followers. This approach of using the average ratings of individuals to represent a group-level construct and then applying the same average score to all individuals within the same group is common in cross-level studies. For example, Campion (1988) and Wong and Campion (1991) averaged job characteristics ratings by different participants and ap- 425 plied this average to all individuals doing the same job when predicting their job satisfaction. In our sample of 162 subordinates, 50 percent were male, the mean age was 32 years, and the mean organizational tenure was 8 years. The subordinates had a mean of 6 years of postsecondary education and had known their immediate supervisors for a mean of 4 years. Among the supervisors, 74 percent were male, the mean age was 36 years, and the mean organizational tenure was 10 years. They had a mean of 8 years of postsecondary education. Measures The following measures consisted of items with response options ranging from 1, “strongly disagree,” to 5, “strongly agree.” Leader-member exchange. We used the LMXMDM (Liden & Maslyn, 1998), which had been validated in our pilot study, to measure leadermember exchange. We conducted another CFA using the main sample to further assess this measure. The fit indexes for four first-order factors plus one second-order factor fell within an acceptable range (␹2 ⫽ 86.97, df ⫽ 50; RMSEA ⫽ .08; CFI ⫽ .96; TLI ⫽ .95; for affect, loyalty, professional respect, and contribution, ␣’s ⫽ .85, .68, .88, and .83, respectively). Transformational leadership. We used the Chinese version of the 23-item transformational leadership scale (Chen & Farh, 1999), which had been validated in our pilot study. The results of a CFA conducted with the main sample to further assess the validity of this measure again confirmed the six-factor plus one second-order factor structure for this measure found in our pilot study (␹2 ⫽ 428.42, df ⫽ 224; RMSEA ⫽ .07; CFI ⫽ .90; TLI ⫽ .90; ␣’s ⫽ .89, .81, .83, .65, .85, and .83, respectively, for the dimensions of fostering collaboration, intellectual stimulation, providing an appropriate model, high performance expectations, articulating a vision, and providing individual support). Organizational citizenship behavior. A Chinese version of the OCB scale originally developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990) was used (Lam, Hui, & Law, 1999). The scale measures the five OCB dimensions: altruism (five items; ␣ ⫽ .85), conscientiousness (four items, ␣ ⫽ .79), sportsmanship (five items, ␣ ⫽.82), civic virtue (four items, ␣ ⫽ .68), and courtesy (five items, ␣ ⫽ .79). Fit indexes fell within an acceptable range (␹2 ⫽ 415.67, df ⫽ 225; RMSEA ⫽ .07; CFI ⫽ .89; TLI ⫽ .87). Task performance. Seven items (␣ ⫽ .89) adopted from Tsui, Pearce, Porter, and Tripoli (1997) were used to measure task performance. A 426 Academy of Management Journal sample item is, “The quality of work is much higher than average.” Data Analysis A two-step process of analysis (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Medsker, Williams, & Holahan, 1994) with LISREL 8.50 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2001) was employed to test our hypotheses. In the first step, we used three tests to verify the distinctiveness of the two core variables in this study—transformational leadership and leader-member exchange (as assessed via the LMX-MDM scale). In the second step, we used a model comparison procedure to evaluate our structural models. To show that transformational leadership was distinct from leader-member exchange, we first conducted a dimension-level CFA including all the variables used in the study. For LMX, we treated the four dimensions of LMX-MDM as its indicators. Similarly, we used six dimensions of transformational leadership as its indicators, and the five OCB dimensions as its indicators. For task performance, we randomly averaged the seven items of this measure to form three indicators. The second test of the distinctiveness of transformational leadership and LMX involved comparing the correlations between each of these variables with task performance. Evidence for discriminant validity would be established if the two correlations were unequal. Cohen and Cohen (1983: 56 – 57) described a test of the difference between two correlations calculated from a single sample. The test statistic is a t with degrees of freedom of three less the sample size (n ⫺ 3). Finally, in a third test of the distinctiveness of transformational leadership and LMX, we entered transformational leader- June ship into a regression model as predicting task performance and OCB. We then entered LMX in a second step, looking for a significant change in the variance explained. If the change in R2 of the model after entering LMX were significant, it would imply that LMX explained additional variance in the dependent variables, beyond what transformational leadership explained. MAIN STUDY: RESULTS Confirmatory Factor Analyses Table 1 presents the CFA results. As shown, the baseline four-factor model fitted the data well (␹2 ⫽ 258.99; df ⫽ 129; RMSEA ⫽ .07; CFI ⫽ .92; TLI ⫽ .91). Against this baseline four-factor model, we tested three alternative models: model 1 was a three-factor model with LMX merged with transformational leadership to form a single factor; model 2 was another three-factor model with task performance merged with OCB to form a single factor; and model 3 was a two-factor model, with transformational leadership merged with LMX to form a single factor, while task performance and OCB were merged into another factor. As Table 1 shows, the fit indexes supported the hypothesized fourfactor model, providing evidence of the construct distinctiveness of transformational leadership, LMX, OCB, and task performance. Following the suggestions of Fornell and Larcker (1981) and Netemeyer, Johnston, and Burton (1990), we further tested the discriminant validity of transformational leadership and leader-member exchange, as measured by the multidimensional LMX-MDM scale, by comparing the variance shared by each construct and its measures with the TABLE 1 Comparison of Measurement Models Model Null model Baseline model Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 ** p ⬍ .01 Factors Four factors. Three factors: Transformational leadership and leader-member exchange were combined into one factor. Three factors: Task performance and organizational citizenship behavior were combined into one factor. Two factors: Transformational leadership and leader-member exchange were combined into one factor; task performance and organizational citizenship behavior were combined into another factor. ␹2 df ⌬␹2 RMSEA CFI TLI 1,877.41 258.99 324.75 153 129 132 65.76** .07 .09 .92 .89 .91 .87 298.73 132 39.74** .09 .90 .89 362.40 134 103.41** .10 .87 .85 2005 Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, and Chen variance shared by both constructs (latent variables). To meet the requirements of the first test, the variance captured by transformational leadership and LMX needed to be larger than .50 and smaller than the squared correlation between these two latent constructs. The variance-extracted estimates for transformational leadership and multidimensional LMX were .68 and .55, respectively (both exceeding the benchmark of .50). The former exceeded the square of the correlation between the latent constructs of transformational leadership and LMX-MDM (␾2 ⫽. 64), while the latter did not. The phi coefficient was also significantly less than 1 (p ⬍ .05, s.e. ⫽ .04). These statistics, together with the CFA results, support the notion that transformational leadership and multidimensional LMX are distinguishable constructs. The composite reliabilities of transformational leadership, LMX, task performance, and OCB were .93, .82, .86 and .81, respectively. As for Cohen and Cohen’s (1983) test of the differences between two Pearson correlations from the same sample, the t-statistic for the difference between the transformational leadership–task performance correlation and the LMX– task performance correlation was 3.19 (df ⫽ 159, p ⬍ .01). When OCB was used as the criterion, t was 1.98 (df ⫽ 159, p ⬍ 427 .05). In the hierarchical regression analysis, the change in variance explained (⌬R2) when LMX was entered after transformational leadership in predicting task performance was .11 (p ⬍ .01). When OCB was used as the criterion, the change in R2 was .06 (p ⬍ .05). Hence, the tests on both task performance and OCB as dependent variables led to the same conclusion, that transformational leadership was distinct from leader-member exchange, as measured by the LMX-MDM scale. Descriptive Statistics Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients, and zero-order correlations of all the studied variables. Transformational leadership correlated significantly (p ⬍ .05) with task performance and OCB (r ⫽. 20 and .18, respectively), and LMX correlated significantly (p ⬍ .01) with these same two variables (r ⫽ .38 and .29, respectively). Hypothesis Tests The univariate correlations between transformational leadership and task performance (r ⫽ .20, p ⬍ .01) and OCB (r ⫽ .18, p ⬍ .01) provided TABLE 2 Measurement Properties Standardized Loadings Reliability Transformational leadership Fostering collaboration Intellectual stimulation Providing an appropriate model High performance expectation Articulating a vision Providing individual support .93a 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.17 .68 0.43 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.46 0.41 Leader-member exchange Affect Loyalty Professional respect Contribution .82a 0.40 0.13 0.29 0.32 .55 0.63 0.36 0.54 0.57 Task performance Indicator 1 Indicator 2 Indicator 3 .86a 0.59 0.52 0.45 .68 0.77 0.72 0.67 .46 0.47 0.63 0.33 0.43 0.46 .81a 0.22 0.40 0.11 0.18 0.21 Construct and Indicator Organizational citizenship behavior Altruism Consciousness Sportsmanship Civic virtue Courtesy a Composite reliability. Variance-Extracted Estimate 428 Academy of Management Journal June TABLE 3 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlationsa Variables 1. 2. 3. 4. Transformational leadership Leader-member exchangeb Task performance Organizational citizenship behavior Mean s.d. 3.86 3.81 3.55 3.47 0.45 0.58 0.79 0.52 1 2 (.93) .71** .20* .18* 3 (.81) .38** .29** 4 (.89) .68** (.80) n ⫽ 162; reliability coefficients for the scales are in parentheses along the diagonal. LMX-MDM was the measure. * p ⬍ .05 ** p ⬍ .01 a b preliminary evidence to support Hypothesis 1, which states that transformational leadership has positive relationships with task performance and OCB. Supporting Hypothesis 2, LMX had positive correlations with those variables as well (task performance, r ⫽ .38, p ⬍ .01; OCB, r ⫽ .29, p ⬍ .01). Hypothesis 3, which predicts that LMX mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and citizenship behavior, was tested through a series of nested model comparisons. Table 4 shows results. Model 1, our baseline model, represents a fully mediating model. We specified paths from transformational leadership to LMX, and from LMX to task performance and OCB. This model does not have direct paths from transformational leadership to followers’ task performance or OCB. As Table 4 shows, all fit indexes showed a good fit (␹2 ⫽ 263.11, df ⫽ 131; RMSEA ⫽ .07; CFI ⫽ .92; TLI ⫽ .91). Against our baseline model, we tested three nested models. In model 2, we added to a direct path from transformational leadership to OCB. Model 3 was also identical to model 1, except for the addition of a direct path from transformational leadership to task performance. In our third nested model, model 4, we added to two direct paths from transformational leadership to both OCB and task performance. Model 1 is therefore nested within models 2, 3, and 4. As Table 4 shows, the differences between chi-squares were not significant for model 1 compared with models 2, 3, or 4. Under the principle of model parsimony, therefore, these results suggested that model 1 best fitted our data. We concluded that leader-member exchange fully mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and task performance. Models 5– 8 are alternative models that are not nested within the above four models. We included the alternative models to assess the effects of changing construct ordering. We modeled the influence of LMX on task performance and OCB as mediated by transformational leadership in model 5, which had good fit (␹2 ⫽ 274.40, df ⫽ 131; RMSEA ⫽ .08; CFI ⫽ .92; TLI ⫽ .91). However, the paths from transformational leadership to task per- TABLE 4 Comparison of Structural Equation Modelsa Model and Structure ␹2 df ⌬␹2 RMSEA CFI TLI 1: TFL 3 LMX 3 OCB ⫹ task performanceb 2: TFL 3 LMX 3 OCB ⫹ task performance and TFL 3 OCB 3: TFL 3 LMX 3 OCB ⫹ task performance and TFL 3 task performance 4: TFL 3 LMX 3 OCB ⫹ task performance and TFL 3 OCB ⫹ task performance 5: LMX 3 TFL 3 OCB ⫹ task performance 6: OCB ⫹ task performance 3 LMX 3 TFL 7: OCB ⫹ task performance 3 TFL 3 LMX 8: TFL ⫹ LMX 3 OCB ⫹ task performance 263.11 261.16 131 130 1.95 .07 .07 .92 .92 .91 .91 260.30 130 2.81 .07 .92 .91 258.99 129 4.12 .07 .92 .91 274.40 500.87 512.18 295.58 131 132 132 130 .08 .14 .14 .14 .92 .79 .78 .90 .91 .75 .74 .89 TFL ⫽ transformational leadership; LMX ⫽ leader-member exchange; OCB ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior. Baseline. * p ⬍ .05 ** p ⬍ .01 a b 2005 Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, and Chen 429 FIGURE 1 Results of Structural Equation Modeling on the Mediating Effect of LMX formance and OCB were not significant. Model 6 captured the influence of OCB and task performance on transformational leadership as mediated by LMX. Model 7 captured the influence of OCB and task performance on LMX as mediated by transformational leadership. Neither model 6 (␹2 ⫽ 500.87, df ⫽ 132; RMSEA ⫽ .14; CFI ⫽ .79; TLI ⫽ .75) nor model 7 (␹2 ⫽ 512.18, df ⫽ 132; RMSEA ⫽ .14; CFI ⫽ .78; TLI ⫽ .74) fitted our data well. With model 8 we tested a model in which transformational leadership and LMX directly influenced followers’ task performance and OCB. The fit indexes for this model (␹2 ⫽295.58, df ⫽ 130; RMSEA ⫽ .14; CFI ⫽ .90; TLI ⫽ .89) were marginal and poorer than the baseline model’s. In summary, the results shown in Table 4 support Hypothesis 3: leader-member exchange mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and performance (task performance and OCB). Figure 1 shows that the coefficient of the path from transformational leadership to LMX was significant (␤ ⫽ .80, p ⬍ .01), as were the coefficients of the paths from LMX to task performance (␤ ⫽ .16, p ⬍ .05) and OCB (␤ ⫽ .32, p ⬍ .01). In support of Hypothesis 2, we found statistically significant and positive coefficients for the paths from LMX to both task performance and OCB. Finally, the substantial path between OCB and task performance (␤ ⫽ .77) suggested that OCB influences supervisory ratings of employee task performance. DISCUSSION This study was a response to calls to investigate the conceptual and empirical links between transformational leadership and leader-member exchange and thereby theoretically integrate transformational and exchange models of leadership (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). The literature on transformational leadership has linked leader behaviors directly to performance outcomes, whereas the LMX literature has given only marginal attention to behaviors, focusing primarily on the quality of the social exchange relationship between dyadic partners. Our study suggests that LMX mediates between transformational leadership and performance (task and OCB). These findings are consistent with the notions that: (1) transformational leadership behaviors are social currency, nourishing high-quality LMX; (2) transformational leadership is associated positively with task performance and OCB; (3) transformational leaders enhance follower receptivity to roleexpanding offers and extrarole behaviors, through processes of personal and/or social identification; and (4) LMX makes transformational leadership more personally meaningful. Our findings also suggest that the effect of transformational leadership on follower performance and OCB is based on how each follower personally experiences and interprets these behaviors (Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2002). Social bonding between leader and follower is important, and a critical level of interaction with a transformational leader may be essential for follower development and social bonding to emerge (Dvir et al., 2002). Generalizability of Results Although our findings are based on samples drawn from mainland China, we have no reason to expect different results were the same study to be conducted in the West. Although some have questioned whether Western leadership models are applicable to “high-power-distance” (authoritarian), collectivist cultures such as mainland China, research has shown remarkably consistent results across cultures (cf. Chen & Farh, 1999; Hackett et al., 2003; Hui, Law, & Chen, 1999). Our study joins a growing body of literature that shows basic relationships between leadership and performance es- 430 Academy of Management Journal June tablished in the West hold up in China, thereby increasing the generalizability of previous findings from Western samples. Because this study is the first to have shown LMX as mediating between transformational leadership and performance, future research should attempt a replication of our results using samples from other national cultures. design would provide greater insights into the temporal dynamics by which leadership behaviors influence follower perceptions, attributions, behaviors, and the development of the LMX relationship. Future studies should also collect behavioral measures of transformational leadership and OCB, in addition to the perceptual measures. Limitations Practical Implications Followers rated both transformational leadership behaviors and LMX, and supervisors rated both the OCB and task performance of subordinates, giving rise to concern about possible common source bias in our results. We attempted to address this concern in part by averaging the subordinate ratings of transformational leadership. Support for the distinctiveness of transformational leadership and LMX came from three sources. The first was confirmatory factor analysis of our measurement model, and the second was the results of the Fornell and Larcker (1981) tests of discriminant validity between constructs. Third, in hierarchical regression analyses LMX explained unique variance in task performance and OCB that went beyond the contribution of transformational leadership to explained variance (whereas transformational leadership did not explain unique variance in task performance and OCB beyond the contribution of LMX). Moreover, we found that LMX correlated more highly with task performance and OCB than did transformational leadership, showing differential relationships despite their common measurement source. Taken together, the above results present a fairly compelling case for the conceptual and empirical distinction between transformational leadership and LMX, though we acknowledge that common method bias remains a concern. Moreover, our findings are based on perceptual (not behavioral) data. Specifically, participants provided ratings of leadership and OCB based on their subjective perceptions, with no independent measures taken to substantiate these perceptions (e.g., recording of actual leadership behavior). Clearly, it would have been preferable had strategies for avoiding common method variance been incorporated into the study design. Podsakoff and his coauthors (2003) suggested several strategies, such as collecting transformational leadership and LMX ratings at two different times. Indeed, the cross-sectional design of our study prevented us from making causal statements of the nature that longitudinal studies would allow. Future research should engage longitudinal designs wherein both qualitative and quantitative data are collected over repeated observations. This Overall, our findings suggest that effective leaders express their transformational behaviors within a personal, dynamic relational exchange context. They fulfill the psychological contract implicit in their social exchange relationships with followers. They are sensitive to follower contributions to the exchanges and reciprocate in ways that build follower self-worth and/or self-concept. Effective leaders link achievement of organizational goals to follower fulfillment of self-development goals, with the former advancing the latter. We are advocating a socially interactive and dynamic model of leadership, where the influence of transformational leadership on performance is through a social exchange between leader and follower. LMX-enhancing transformational leadership strategies should be part of leadership development programs. Transformational leaders who are insensitive to the importance of followers’ reciprocity expectations and the relational requirements of a high-quality relationship (e.g., reciprocity, personal development, and social bonding; Dvir et al., 2002) are likely to be less effective than they could be. It appears that it is through developing stronger dyadic social bonds that transformational leaders impact follower performance. Additionally, our findings provide insights into how high-quality leader-member exchange relationships can be developed. The LMX literature focuses strongly on the outcomes of high-quality leader-member exchange, giving less attention to how leaders can build high-quality exchange relationships with their followers. The transformational leadership literature has a primary focus on performance-enhancing leader behaviors. Our findings suggest that transformational leadership behaviors are instrumental to developing high-quality LMX relationships. It follows that the effectiveness of leadership programs aimed at developing the quality of leader-follower dyadic relationships can be enhanced by incorporating training in transformational leadership skills. REFERENCES Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. 1998. The effects of organizational citizenship on performance judgments: A 2005 Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, and Chen 431 field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 247–260. measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18: 39 –50. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103: 411– 423. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. 1997. Meta-analysis review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlation and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 827– 844. Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. 2003. Leadership models, methods and applications. In W. Borman, D. Ilgen, & R. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, vol. 12—Industrial and organizational psychology: 277–307. New York: Wiley. Goodwin, V. L., Wofford, J. C., & Whittington, J. L. 2001. A theoretical and empirical extension of transformational leadership construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 759 –776. Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free Press. Basu, R., & Green, S. G. 1997. Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: An empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27: 477– 499. Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Jossey-Bass. Brislin, R. W. 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, vol. 2—Methodology: 349 – 444. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Campion, M. A. 1988. Interdisciplinary approaches to job design: A constructive replication with extensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73: 467– 481. Chen, X., & Farh, J. L. 1999. The effectiveness of transactional and transformational leader behaviors in Chinese organizations: Evidence from Taiwan. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. 1983. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2002. Emotion and attribution of intentionality in leader-member relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13: 615– 634. Deluga, R. J. 1992. The relationship of leader-member exchanges with laissez-faire, transactional, and transformational leadership. In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. R. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leadership: 237–247. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Deluga, R. J. 1994. Supervisor trust building, leadermember exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67: 315–326. Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. 2002. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 735–744. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and Graen, G. B. 1976. Role making processes within complex organization. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: 1201–1245. Chicago: Rand-McNally. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6: 219 –247. Hackett, R. D., Farh, J.-L., Song, L. J., & Lapierre, L. M. 2003. LMX and organizational citizenship behavior: Examining the links within and across Western and Chinese samples. In G. Graen (Ed.), Dealing with diversity: LMX leadership—The series, vol. 1: 219 – 263. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. 1997. The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23: 409 – 473. Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. 1999. The ties that bind: The impact of leader-member exchange, transformational leadership and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 680 – 694. Hui, C., Law, K. S., & Chen, Z. X. 1999. A structural equation model of the effects of negative affectivity, leader-member exchange, and perceived job mobility on in-role and extra-role performance: A Chinese case. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77: 3–21. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. 2001. LISREL 8.50. Scientific Software International. Kelman, H. C. 1958. Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2: 51–56. Lam, S. S. K., Hui, C., & Law, K. S. 1999. Organizational citizenship behavior: Comparing perspectives of supervisors and subordinates across four international samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 594 – 601. LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. 2002. The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 52– 65. Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. 1998. Multi-dimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24: 43–72. 432 Academy of Management Journal Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. 1996. Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7: 385– 425. Medsker, G. J., Williams, L. J., & Holahan, P. J. 1994. A review of current practice for evaluating causal models in organizational behavior and human resources management research. Journal of Management, 20: 439 – 464. Netemeyer, R. G., Johnston, M. W., & Burton, S. 1990. Analysis of role conflict and role ambiguity in a structural equation framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 148 –157. Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 879 –903. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 1: 107–142. Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. 1984. Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 428 – 436. Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. 1990. Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. Journal of Management, 16: 693–703. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A selfconcept theory. Organizational Science, 4: 1–17. Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. 1997. Alternative approaches to the employee-organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, 40: 1089 –1121. Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. 2002. The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 590 –598. Werner, J. M. 1994. Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in-role and extra-role behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 98 –107. Wong, C. S., & Campion, M. A. 1991. Development and test of a task level model of motivational job design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 825– 837. Yukl, G. 2002. Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. June Hui Wang (wanghui@gsm.pku.edu.cn) is an associate professor of organizational management research at the Guanghua School of Management, Peking University. He received his Ph.D. in the management of organizations from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. His research interests include leadership behavior, organizational culture, and firm performance, especially in the context of Chinese organizations. Kenneth S. Law is an active researcher in the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. He received his Ph.D. from University of Iowa. His area of expertise is human resource management and management in the Chinese context. His major research areas are personnel selection, human resource research methods, organizational citizenship behaviors, compensation management, and HRM/OB issues in Chinese management. Rick D. Hackett is a professor and the Canada Research Chair of Organizational Behavior and Human Performance at the DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University. He received his Ph.D. in industrial-organizational psychology from Bowling Green State University. His primary research interests are leadership, work attitudes, employee commitment, contextual performance, and absenteeism. Duanxu Wang is an associate professor of management at Zhejiang University in the People’s Republic of China. He received his Ph.D. from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. His current research interests include employment relationships, strategic human resource management, knowledge management, and crosscultural issues. Zhen Xiong Chen is currently a senior lecturer in the School of Business and Government, University of Canberra, Australia. He received his Ph.D. in the management of organizations from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, where he specialized in organizational behavior. His research interests include organizational commitment, organizational justice, leadership, cross-cultural management, and management in the Chinese context.
515 Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2004), 77, 515–530 © 2004 The British Psychological Society www.bps.org.uk The role of collective efficacy in the relations between transformational leadership and work outcomes Fred O. Walumbwa1*, Peng Wang2, John J. Lawler2 and Kan Shi3 1 Department of Management, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, University of Illinois at Urbana– Champaign, USA 3 Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China 2 Using a sample of 402 employees from the banking and finance sectors in China and India, we found that transformational leadership is positively related to organizational commitment and job satisfaction, and negatively related to job and work withdrawal. We also found that collective efficacy mediated the contribution of transformational leadership to job and work withdrawal and partially mediated the contribution of transformational leadership to organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Implications and directions for future research are discussed. Research studies have consistently revealed that transformational leadership is positively related to work outcomes (Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002; Fuller, Patterson, Hester, & Stringer, 1996; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). However, the question of what are the underlying processes and mechanisms by which transformational leaders exert their influence on followers and ultimately on performance has not fully been explored (Kark & Shamir, 2002; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003). Bass (1999) notes, ‘much more explanation is needed about the inner workings of transformational leadership’ (p. 24). Therefore, research on these processes is needed in order to gain better understanding of transformational leadership and why followers of transformational leaders demonstrate high level of commitment, job satisfaction and less withdrawal behaviours (Kark & Shamir, 2002). In this study, we explored the role of collective efficacy in mediating the relations between transformational leadership and followers’ work-related outcomes using data collected from Chinese and Indian financial firms. Collective efficacy refers to each individual’s assessment of his or her group’s collective capability to perform job-related behaviours (Riggs, Warka, Babasa, Betancourt, & *Correspondence should be addressed to Fred O. Walumbwa, Department of Management, College of Business Administration, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68588–0491, USA (e-mail: fwalumbwa@unlnotes.unl.edu). 516 Fred O. Walumbwa et al. Hooker, 1994). Although Bandura (1986) originally defined efficacy beliefs as occurring at the individual level, recent conceptualization suggests that efficacy beliefs can also occur at the collective level (Bandura, 1997, 2000; Maddux, 2002). Specifically, Bandura (1997) argues that efficacy beliefs play an important role in both individual and group motivation because people have to rely, at least to some extent, on others to accomplish their tasks. Because collective efficacy appears to account for important organizational outcomes, better understanding of how organizations could boost collective efficacy is important (Chen & Bliese, 2002). Unfortunately, research on collective efficacy has mainly focused on its outcomes, whereas relatively little is known about the situational antecedents of collective efficacy. We believe that to understand the role of collective efficacy in organizations better, it is important to examine not only how collective efficacy affects organizational outcomes, but also how it is affected by other variables. Given the dominant role of leadership in the workplace, one key situational factor that may have substantial impact on collective efficacy is leadership. The goal of this study is to address this important yet relatively unstudied issue. Transformational leadership, collective efficacy and work outcomes Transformational leadership and work outcomes As already noted, the link between transformational leadership and work outcomes, such as organizational commitment and job satisfaction, is well established (Bass, 1998). According to Bass (1985), transformational leaders motivate their followers to transcend their own self-interests for the sake of the group. As a consequence, such leaders are able to bring a deeper understanding and appreciation of input from each member. Bass (1985) further argued that such leaders encourage followers to think critically and to seek new ways to approach their jobs. This charge to seek new ways to approach problems and challenges motivates followers to become more involved in their duties, resulting in an increase in the levels of satisfaction with their work and commitment to the organization. This position has received support empirically. For instance, work by Dvir, Eden, Avolio, and Shamir (2002) demonstrated that transformational leaders had direct effects on followers’ motivation, morality and empowerment. Barling, Weber, and Kelloway (1996) in another experimental study reported a significant effect of transformational leadership on followers’ organizational commitment and unit-level financial performance. Other studies (e.g., Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; Koh, Steers, & Terborg, 1995), including three meta-analytic reviews (e.g., Dumdum et al., 2002; Fuller et al., 1996; Lowe et al., 1996) have also shown transformational leadership positively related to work-related outcomes such as satisfaction, commitment, and performance. It is possible that by encouraging followers to go beyond their immediate needs to address the long-term interests of their organizations, transformational leaders are able to mobilize higher levels of commitment from their followers for a common good of the organization (Avolio & Bass, 1988). Although there is a theoretical basis to expect transformational leadership behaviour will influence perceptions of withdrawal behaviours, this area of research has received less research attention. According to Bass (1998), transformational leaders show respect and confidence, and they motivate their followers to work hard to improve organizational effectiveness (Bass & Avolio, 1994). By showing respect and confidence in their followers, transformational leaders are able to bring a high degree of trust and loyalty on the part of followers to the extent that followers are willing to identify with Transformational leadership and work outcomes: role of collective efficacy 517 the leader and the organization. As a result, followers trust in and emotionally identify with the leader, such that they are willing to stay with the organization—even under very difficult circumstances. Others (e.g., Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1998) have argued that transformational leaders cause followers to become attached to their organization and work toward group goals leading to undesired behaviours. For instance, by encouraging followers to think more deeply about the obstacles confronting them in their jobs, transformational leaders are able to help followers develop a better understanding of what needs to be done to be successful, resulting in reduced withdrawal behaviours. Indeed, research findings have shown that transformational leadership is negatively related to withdrawal behaviours (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000; Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003). Transformational leadership and collective efficacy There is reason to believe that transformational leaders can influence collective efficacy. Shamir (1990) argued that one of the most important characteristics of transformational leadership is its ability to heighten followers’ collective motivation. To explain how this process might occur, we draw on two interrelated theories. First, we turn to social identification theory—defined as a process whereby an individual’s belief about a group or organization becomes self-referential or self-defining (Pratt, 1998). Transformational leaders are able to influence their followers by connecting followers’ self-concept to the mission of the group, ‘such that followers’ behavior for the sake of group becomes self-expressive’ (Kark & Shamir, 2002, p. 7). Indeed, empirical findings suggest that leaders who raise followers’ identification with the group increase followers’ willingness to contribute to group objectives (Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998, 2000). Transformational leaders also can enhance collective efficacy by providing emotional and ideological explanations that link followers’ individual identities to the collective identity of their organization (Kark & Shamir, 2002). For example, through individualized consideration, transformational leaders are able to help their followers’ recognize their (followers’) capabilities, which then provides a basis for elevating each follower’s needs and performance to higher than expected levels (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Avolio, Kahai, Dumdum, and Sivasubramaniam (2001) argued that transformational leaders influence perceptions of team members’ ability, benevolence, integrity and information exchange (and by extension group effectiveness) by highlighting the importance of cooperation in performing collective tasks. Further, by emphasizing the group mission, stressing shared values and ideology, connecting followers’ individual and group interests, transformational leaders provide followers with more opportunities to appreciate group accomplishments and other group members’ contributions, resulting in collective identities (Kark & Shamir, 2002). Work by Jung and Sosik (2002), using 47 groups drawn from four Korean firms, demonstrated that transformational leadership was positively related to group cohesiveness and group effectiveness. It is possible that by encouraging followers to take greater responsibility for their own development as well as the development of others, transformational leaders are able to build greater collective identification in what’s important for the group to consider and accomplish successfully (Kark & Shamir, 2002; Kark et al., 2003). Such leaders are able to build followers’ collective efficacy by raising their awareness of other group members’ contribution and by emphasizing the value of self-sacrifice for the good of the group (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1998). 518 Fred O. Walumbwa et al. Another important theoretical framework that can help explain how transformational leadership influences collective efficacy, is the self-concept theory (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). According to this theory, group norm is the yardstick for measuring individual self-worth in relation to other out-group members (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). This theory suggests increasing followers’ self-efficacy and facilitating followers’ self-identification with the group as mechanisms through which transformational leaders motivate followers. We argue that by emphasizing similarities among group members, transformational leaders can increase activation of collective efficacy by shaping the context of work and linking followers’ values and ideologies to the mission of the group (Kark & Shamir, 2002; Shamir et al., 1998). Such leaders work to raise their followers’ confidence and expand their needs in line with what they have come to identify with in terms of groups’ collective mission (Sosik, Avolio, & Kahai, 1997). By building followers’ confidence, such leaders are expected to have a strong, positive influence over time on followers’ level of collective identification and motivation (Shamir et al., 1993). Collective efficacy and followers’ work-related outcomes Collective efficacy can influence followers’ work-related outcomes in a number of ways. Bandura (2000) argued that when faced with obstacles, groups with higher levels of collective efficacy are more likely to persist in trying to solve such problems. Bandura (1986, 1997) further argued that efficacy beliefs influence what people choose to do as a group, how much effort they put into it and their staying power when collective efforts fail to produce results. Thus, it is possible that employees with lower efficacy are likely to call in sick rather than face another day of frustration on a job they feel unable to perform. On the other hand, employees higher on efficacy may exhibit fewer withdrawal behaviours, as they are likely to expend more effort and persistence in task performance (Bandura, 1986). These views have received support empirically. For instance, Hochwarter, Kiewitz, Castro, Perrewe, and Ferris (2003) reported that individuals with low perceived collective efficacy were less satisfied with their jobs when levels of ‘go-along-to-get-along’ politics increased. Jex and colleagues (e.g., Jex & Bliese, 1999; Jex & Thomas, 2003), using military personnel samples, found collective efficacy related to job-related stressors and strains (i.e., job satisfaction, commitment). Specifically, Jex and Bliese (1999) found collective efficacy significantly related to average levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Mulvey and Klein (1998), in testing the impact of perceived loafing and collective efficacy on group goal process and performance, found collective efficacy positively related to group goal commitment. Zellars, Hochwarter, Perrewe, Miles, and Kiewitz (2001), using a sample of 188 nurses, found that collective efficacy was associated with lower levels of turnover intentions and higher levels of job satisfaction, even after controlling for age, gender and self-efficacy. Two recent meta-analytic reviews also reached similar conclusions regarding the validity of collective efficacy in predicting work-related outcomes (Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi, & Beaubien, 2002; Stajkovic & Lee, 2001). Taken together, we advance the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership will be positively associated with collective efficacy. Hypothesis 2a: Collective efficacy will mediate the relations between transformational leadership and organizational commitment. Hypothesis 2b: Collective efficacy will mediate the relations between transformational leadership and job satisfaction (i.e., satisfaction with supervisor and with work in general). Transformational leadership and work outcomes: role of collective efficacy 519 Hypothesis 3: Collective efficacy will mediate the relations between transformational leadership and withdrawal behaviours (i.e., job and work withdrawal). The research context Because the constructs investigated in this study are primarily developed in the West, we need to discuss explicitly the applicability and transferability of these constructs to Asian cultures, particularly transformational leadership (Walumbwa, 1999). On the surface, it might seem that the notion of transformational leadership may not be compatible with Chinese and Indian cultures. Both societies score high on collectivism and power distance (Hofstede, 1980). Collectivistic or hierarchical societies tend to generate very top-down and relatively autocratic leadership practices, which seemingly would not be compatible with transformational leadership. There is a strong tradition of paternalistic management in Chinese organizations (Chen, 1995), much of which was institutionalized in Chinese state-owned enterprises after the 1949 revolution, mainly in the form of the ‘iron rice bowl’ employment system (which guaranteed workers cradle-to-grave benefits and security). And although Confucianism as a philosophy was suppressed in much of the post-revolutionary era, Confucian values have continued to exert a fundamental influence in Chinese society, including a penchant to respect and defer to those in superior positions (Hwang, 2001). Despite these characteristics of Chinese culture, there are reasons to believe that transformational leadership could have similar effects in the workplace in China as in the United States. First, the nature of paternalistic leadership is complex and multifaceted. Farh and Cheng (2000) note that paternalism in Chinese culture not only incorporates authoritarian leadership techniques, but also those rooted in both benevolence and moral example, which are very much aspects of Confucianism. Moral leaders motivate subordinates through exemplary and virtuous behaviour, while benevolent leadership involves care and consideration for the welfare of subordinates. In practice, paternalistic leaders in Chinese society would apply all three styles in varying combinations depending upon their personal characteristics and perhaps the situation (Farh & Cheng, 2000). Those exercising moral and benevolent leadership techniques would seem very much to be employing transformational leadership methods (i.e., providing inspiration and individual consideration, being charismatic). Indeed, the ideal Confucian leader is not the autocrat but the benevolent sage—the ‘Confucian gentleman’—who maintains harmony and inspires devotion. Similar processes would appear to be at work in India. Sinha (1997) notes there are multiple and sometimes conflicting forces at work shaping Indian management systems: bureaucracy rooted in the legacy of British colonial rule, traditional Indian values rooted in Hinduism, and conventional Western business values (promoted by multinationals and Indian managers educated in the West). Concepts of leadership in India rooted in traditional values parallel aspects of Western transformational leadership (as in China). The distance between leaders and subordinates is very deferential to superiors; but the superior’s authority is rooted not just in position, but moral integrity. Thus, leaders should provide care and affection to subordinates, as well as provide guidance and inspiration (Sinha, 1997). The impact of Western values, especially among the more educated, would further promote openness to transformational leadership techniques. In sum, the point here is not that transformational leadership is necessarily commonplace in Chinese and Indian organizations—clearly it is not. Rather, there are aspects of 520 Fred O. Walumbwa et al. idealized notions of leadership in these two societies that are indeed quite compatible with transformational leadership. These similar notions may cause workers to be receptive to such an approach. Indeed, there is both theory and empirical findings to suggest that transformational leadership works both in collectivistic and individualistic cultures (Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003). This being so, we believe transformational leadership would seem applicable to China and India. Method Sample and procedure Our data was collected in Chinese and Indian financial firms. In each country, we contacted top managers (e.g., CEOs, HR managers) to seek permission to participate in the study. After permission was granted, all employees were assured that all of the survey information that we collected would be kept confidential. The survey, which included all scales, was administered on-site and one of our researchers collected the completed survey. For the non-English speaking China, the questionnaire, which was developed in English, was translated into Chinese following the conventional method of back-translation described by Brislin (1980). A bilingual speaker (Chinese and English) performed the initial translation. After this, the questionnaire was given to another bilingual translator, who then back-translated it into English. Finally, the original and the re-translated questionnaire were piloted with several native Chinese students in a large research institution in the United States, and any concerns that were raised were resolved. A total of 402 (China = 208; India = 194) employees participated in this study. Women comprised 41% of the total sample (China = 74%; India = 26%). Respondents ranged in age from 20 to 51 years, with a mean age of 32 years (SD = 6.36) for China and 34 years (SD = 9.37) for India; and over 90% were married or living with a partner. Respondents were well educated, with more than 97% having completed some college or university degree. Measures Transformational leadership Bass and Avolio’s (1994) conceptualization of transformational leadership includes charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. Although these four subscales are theoretically distinct, in the present study, we make no distinction among the component factors of transformational leadership. This is consistent with recent empirical developments on transformational leadership, which have consistently shown that these dimensions are highly correlated and reflect the high-order construct of transformational leadership (e.g., Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bass, 1998). Bass (1998) has argued that this combination satisfies the needs for parsimony in research. The rating of transformational leadership (coefficient alpha = .92) was obtained using 20 items adopted from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1995). Ratings were completed on a 0 to 4 scale, with 0 representing ‘Not at all’ and 4 representing ‘Frequently, if not always’. Sample item: ‘Goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group.’ Collective efficacy We used a 7-item scale from Riggs et al. (1994) to measure collective efficacy (coefficient alpha = .74). Sample item: ‘The members of this department have excellent Transformational leadership and work outcomes: role of collective efficacy 521 job skills’. Responses were made on a 6-point response scale ranging from ‘Very inaccurate’ (1) to ‘Very accurate’ (6). Organizational commitment Organizational commitment is viewed as a multidimensional construct. However, in this study, the focus is on affective organizational commitment to remain consistent with prior studies in international management literature (Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003). A 9-item scale adopted from Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979) was used to measure affective organizational commitment (coefficient alpha = .85). Sample item: ‘This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me’. Responses were made on a 5-point scale, with 1 representing ‘Strongly disagree’ and 5 representing ‘Strongly agree.’ Job satisfaction Job satisfaction is also viewed as a multidimensional construct. However, only satisfaction with supervisor (coefficient alpha = .82) and satisfaction with work in general (coefficient alpha = .87) were investigated in the present study because leader behaviour is expected to have a strong effect on these dimensions (Schriesheim, 1979). Eighteen items adopted from Smith, Kendall, and Hulin’s (1969) Job Descriptive Index (JDI) were used to measure job satisfaction. Sample items: ‘My supervisor praises good work’ (satisfaction with supervisor) and ‘My work is fascinating’ (satisfaction with work in general). Respondents were asked to circle ‘yes’ (2) if the item described their supervisor or their work, ‘no’ (0) if the item did not, and ‘?’ (1) if they could not decide. Withdrawal behaviours We measured perceptions of withdrawal behaviours using measures developed by Hanisch and Hulin (1991). Six items addressed job withdrawal (coefficient alpha = .72). Sample item: ‘How often do you think about quitting your job?’ Responses were made on a 5-point scale, with 1 representing ‘Never’ and 5 representing ‘Constantly’. Eight items addressed work withdrawal (coefficient alpha = .84). Respondents were asked to review a list of behaviours and then record the number of times they have observed each behaviour in the past year on an 8-point Likert-type scale rating ranging from ‘Never’ (1) to ‘More than once a week’ (8). This scale was transformed into a 4-point scale in our analyses, with 1 representing ‘Never’ and 4 representing ‘More than once per week’ following Hanisch and Hulin (1991). Sample item: ‘How often do you think about being late for work?’ Control variables Because previous research (e.g., Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003) suggests that age, gender, organization tenure, education and job level may confound the relationship between leadership and outcome variables, we measured and used these factors as controls in all our analyses. Country, gender, education and job level were all dummy-coded. Measurement equivalence Before conducting our analyses, we employed mean substitution to replace missing values using their respective scale means. We used mean substitution because we had 522 Fred O. Walumbwa et al. less than 3% missing data, consistent with Donner’s (1982) recommendation that mean substitution be used when less than 10% of the data is missing. To establish the validity and reliability of the scales used in this study and the equivalency of the scales across samples, we used a combination of mean and covariance structures and simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Both techniques were performed using the AMOS maximum likelihood estimation method because its estimators are asymptotically unbiased, consistent and efficient (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999; Raju, Laffitte, & Byrne, 2002). Results indicated that the factor structure specifying the unidimensionality of all constructs was consistent with the data for the two samples. The fit indices (goodness-of-fit, adjusted goodness-of-fit, comparative fit index, and normed fit index) for each construct ranged from .97 to .99 for both unrestricted and restricted models. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) for each construct ranged from .02 to .03. Common method/source Because our data was collected from the same source using the same method, we determined the extent of method variance in the present study. We used Harman’s (1967) single-factor statistical procedure to address the potential common-method/ source bias. The basic assumption of this technique is that if a substantial amount of common-method variance exists, either a) a single factor will emerge from the factor analysis, or b) one ‘general’ factor will account for the majority of the covariance in the independent and criterion variables (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Using an eigenvalue greater than 1 cut-off criterion, all the seven factors were factor analysed using the principal axis method with varimax rotation. Results indicated the presence of seven factors, suggesting that common-method/source variance was not a serious problem in this study, although this procedure does not completely rule out the possibility of same-source bias. Note, however, that Crampton and Wagner (1994) argued that method-driven inflation is not as severe as generally claimed. Aggregation tests The level of theory should always dictate the level at which a construct is measured (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999). Because collective efficacy is conceptualized as a group construct (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Riggs et al., 1994), measures of collective efficacy were aggregated to the unit (department) level. This is consistent with past research (Chen & Bliese, 2002; Jex & Bliese, 1999). To test the suitability of such aggregation, both between-group differences and within-group agreement was examined. To do this, we calculated intra-class correlations ICC(1) and ICC(2) following the formula provided by Bliese (2000). The ICC(1) was .15 and the ICC(2) was .68 (F = 2.89, p < .0001). Despite the moderate ICC(2) values, we continued with the analyses because we theoretically defined collective efficacy as group-level construct. Values greater than .70 for ICC(2) are typically used to justify aggregation (Bliese, 2000). Transformational leadership has also been conceptualized as a group-level construct (Jung & Sosik, 2002; Shamir et al., 1998). In this study, however, we treated transformational leadership as an individual level because we recognize that leaders may behave differently across situations and followers. This conclusion was supported by the ICCs, which did not exhibit high levels of within-group agreement and reliability to justify aggregation (ICC[1] = .02; ICC[2] = .47). Transformational leadership and work outcomes: role of collective efficacy 523 Results Table 1 summarizes the means, standard deviations, coefficient alphas and correlations for all measures. Tests of hypotheses To test the direct and indirect effect of transformational leadership, we followed the procedure described by Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger (1998) using hierarchical multiple regression. However, before conducting our analyses, we examined the residual plots and confirmed that regression assumptions were not violated. Results are shown in Table 2. As shown in step 1 of Table 2, transformational leadership made a significant contribution to collective efficacy (β = .36, p < .001). Results in step 2 of Table 2 indicate that transformational leadership made significant contributions to all outcomes (organizational commitment, β = .36, p < .001; satisfaction with supervisor, β = .67, p < .001; satisfaction with work in general, β = .40, p < .001; job withdrawal, β = −.14, p < .01; and work withdrawal, β = −.11, p < .05). As indicated in step 3 of Table 2, collective efficacy significantly predicted work-related outcomes (organizational commitment, β = .34, p < .001; satisfaction with supervisor, β = .36, p < .001; satisfaction with work in general, β = .29, p < .001; job withdrawal, β = −.23, p < .001; and work withdrawal, β = −.16, p < .01). The decreased, but still significant, coefficient for transformational leadership at step 4 (column 13 and 14) of Table 2 indicates that collective efficacy partially mediates the contribution of transformational leadership to organizational commitment, satisfaction with supervisor, and with work in general. However, the insignificant coefficient for transformational leadership in columns 15 and 16 of Table 2 (step 4) indicates that collective efficacy completely mediates the relationship between the transformational leadership and withdrawal behaviours. Thus, these results fully support Hypotheses 1 and 3, and partially Hypothesis 2. Discussion Research on transformational leadership has been criticized for providing little information about the possible mechanisms through which transformational leadership 524 Fred O. Walumbwa et al. Transformational leadership and work outcomes: role of collective efficacy 525 behaviour influences work-related outcomes (Podsakoff, MaKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000; Yukl, 1999). Thus, the present study was intended to enhance our understanding on leadership processes by explaining how transformational leaders motivate their followers (Kark & Shamir, 2002). The finding that collective efficacy fully or partially mediated the relations between transformational leadership and work outcomes is a step forward in uncovering the process through which transformational leadership influences work-related outcomes, and more importantly, why followers of transformational leaders demonstrate high levels of job satisfaction and commitment, and less withdrawal intentions. Specifically, we found that collective efficacy completely mediated the effect of transformational leadership on followers’ withdrawal behaviours, but only partially on work attitudes. The finding that collective efficacy partially mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and work-related attitudes suggests that transformational leadership may influence work-related attitudes through multiple mechanisms. Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) suggested that two constructs must correspond in terms of their levels of specificity in order to have strong relationship. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment are relatively general attitudes while collective efficacy is a task-specific belief in this study. Thus, it is reasonable to expect factors other than collective efficacy may mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and work attitudes. Moreover, because transformational leaders are able to encourage followers to think critically and to seek new ways to approach their job, this may directly strengthen followers’ job involvement and intrinsic motivation, resulting in more desirable work-related attitudes. This is an important area for future research. The results of this study are also in line with results of Chen and Bliese (2002) which suggested that leadership may be a good predictor of collective efficacy. Specifically, the pattern of results support prior research which highlights the importance of transformational leadership in raising followers’ confidence and their groups’ collective mission (Sosik et al., 1997). Many leadership researchers have argued the importance of collective efficacy in the transformational leadership process. For example, Shamir and colleagues (e.g., Shamir et al., 1993; Shamir et al., 1998) argued that transformational leadership can increase the salience of collective identity of followers by highlighting their membership in the unit and simultaneously emphasize the identity of the unit, by stressing its uniqueness from other units. Bass and Avolio (1994) take a similar position, suggesting that transformational leaders increase group members’ motivation, confidence and performance by elevating the salience of the group and its capabilities while also supporting followers in achieving the collective goals. Finally, our findings also suggest that by developing collective efficacy through transformational leadership, withdrawal behaviours can be greatly minimized. That is, high collective efficacy may lower the rates of undesired behaviours (i.e., reporting late to work or calling in sick when they are actually not), e.g., by providing group members with emotional support (Cohen & Wills, 1985). The findings that transformational leadership has both direct and indirect effects on followers’ work-related outcomes have practical implications for leadership development programmmes. It suggests that organizations can benefit greatly by providing transformational leadership training to their supervisors and managers to enhance followers’ collective efficacy, in turn enhancing positive outcomes. Such training may be done through the use of goal-setting interventions (Barling et al., 1996). Indeed, several authors view such training as a highly promising means of enhancing collective efficacy and motivation (Avolio et al., 2001; Bass, 1998; Kark et al., 2003; Sosik et al., 526 Fred O. Walumbwa et al. 1997). Shamir et al. (1993) argued that transformational leaders may raise the salience of the collective identity in followers’ self-concepts by emphasizing ideology and shared values, both directly and indirectly, through references to the history of the unit and symbolic actions of founders, former leaders and former members. Our research is supportive of these arguments by showing that transformational leadership may increase followers’ collective efficacy and ultimately reduce withdrawal behaviours. Thus, managers who want to improve collective efficacy might consider building transformational leadership skills as a means to reducing withdrawal intentions and enhancing organizational effectiveness. This is particularly important as organizations are increasingly embracing groups or team work as the basic building block of their business operations (Mohrman, Cohen, & Mohrman, 1995). Finally, the finding that collective efficacy mediated transformational leadership– withdrawal intentions relations, suggest that efforts to enhance employees’ collective efficacy, may be beneficial in reducing withdrawal intentions. For instance, in situations where groups are periodically experiencing difficulties that might result into withdrawal behaviours, it may be helpful to foster a strong sense of collective efficacy among group members. This may help because collective efficacy may serve to enhance social support (Jex & Bliese, 1999). This suggestion is consistent with Bandura’s (2000) assertion that perceived collective efficacy might influence what people choose to do as a group and the effort they put into their task. Limitations and recommendations for future research The results of this study suggest several important areas of future research. First, although our findings showed collective efficacy fully mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and behavioural intentions, this area of research still merits further empirical investigation. For example, we examined behavioural intentions as surrogates of actual behaviours, rather than actual behaviour. Although previous studies (e.g., Hanisch & Hulin, 1991) suggest behavioural intentions can be ideal substitutes for actual behaviour (especially when constraints do not allow for actual behaviours to be measured), this limits the extent to which we can make firm conclusions about our results. Therefore, an obvious direction for future research is to examine actual work behaviours such as turnover and job performance to test whether the results would vary as a function of actual behaviour. Secondly, because all data was collected by a means of self-report measures, this raises the possibility that the findings may have been confounded by common-method/ source variance. Future studies should consider employing multiple sources of data collection (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Moreover, because data for this study was collected from the financial sector, it would be helpful for future studies to replicate these findings in non-financial settings to enhance generalizability in other settings. Thirdly, the use of cross-sectional data precludes definitive assertions regarding causality. Longitudinal designs are needed in future research to avoid such problems. However, such studies must take into consideration the optimal time lag because without time lag, longitudinal data might provide biased parameter estimates worse than those obtained from cross-sectional data. Finally, although we did not compare across cultures, it would be more informative if future research attempts to include both individualistic and collectivistic cultures in examining the role of collective efficacy. We believe this issue is very important for future cross-cultural leadership Transformational leadership and work outcomes: role of collective efficacy 527 researchers to address in order to determine whether the results would vary as a function of cultural differences. Conclusion This study makes a contribution to our understanding of the processes through which transformational leadership affects followers’ work-related outcomes. Specifically, this study suggests that transformational leadership is an antecedent of collective efficacy and that collective efficacy plays an important role in the relationship between transformational leadership and work-related outcomes, especially to followers’ behavioural intentions. This finding is important because, despite the commonly held view among organizational researchers that the development of collective efficacy is beneficial for organizations, considerably less is known about the antecedents of collective efficacy (Chen & Bliese, 2002). We hope that the results of the current study will stimulate further investigation into the potential mediating effects of collective efficacy using other leadership theories. Acknowledgements Support for this research was provided by a research grant from the Center for International Business Education Research and the University of Illinois at Champaign–Urbana Research Board. We appreciate thoughtful comments from the Action Editor, Samuel Aryee, and the three anonymous reviewers. An earlier version of this article was presented in August 2003 at the annual Academy of Management in Seattle, Washington, USA. References Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine full-range leadership theory using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261–295. Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: Smallwaters. Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Avolio, B. A., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma and beyond. In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Balaga, H. P. Bachler, & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vista (pp. 29–50). Emsford, NY: Pergamon Press. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441–462. Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S., Dumdum, R., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2001). Virtual teams: Implications e-leadership and team development. In M. London (Ed.), How people evaluate others in organizations (pp. 337–358). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75–78. Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827–832. 528 Fred O. Walumbwa et al. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research in transformational leadership. European Journal of Works and Organizational Psychology, 10, 9–32. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual leader form, rater, and scoring key for MLQ (Form 5x-Short). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski, (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp.389–444). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93. Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessment of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468–478. Chen, M. (1995). Asian management systems: Chinese, Japanese, and Korean styles of business. London: International Thomson. Chen, G., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self- and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 549–556. Crampton, S. M., & Wagner III, J. A. (1994). Percept–percept in microorganization research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67–76. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress social report, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357. Donner, A. (1982). The relative effectiveness of procedures commonly used in multiple regression analysis for dealing with missing values. American Statistician, 36, 378–381. Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. (2002). A meta-analysis of transformational and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (Vol. 2, pp. 36–66). Oxford: Elsevier Science. Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735–744. Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In J. T. Li, A. S., Tsui, & E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and organizations in the Chinese context. (pp. 84–127) London: Macmillan. Fuller, J. B., Peterson, C. E., Hester, K., & Stringer, D. Y. (1996). A quantitative review of research on charismatic leadership. Psychological Reports, 78, 271–287. Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of teamefficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819–832. Harman, H. H. (1967). Modern factor analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1991). General attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An evaluation of a causal model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 110–128. Hochwarter, W. A., Kiewitz, C., Castro, S. L., Perrewe, P. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Positive affectivity and collective efficacy as moderators of the relationship between perceived politics and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1009–1035. Transformational leadership and work outcomes: role of collective efficacy 529 Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage. Hwang, K. K. (2001). The deep structure of Confucianism: A social psychological approach. Asian Philosophy, 11, 179–204. Jex, S. M., & Bliese, P. D. (1999). Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of work-related stressors: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 349–361. Jex, S. M., & Thomas, J. L. (2003). Relations between stressors and group perceptions: Main and mediating effects. Work and Stress, 17, 158–170. Jung, D. I., & Sosik, J. J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups: The role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance. Small Group Research, 33, 313–336. Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2002). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational and collective selves and further effects on followers. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 67–91). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Kark, R., & Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246–255. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th. ed., pp. 233–265). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 319–333. Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385–425. Maddux, J. E. (2002). Self-efficacy. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 277–287). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, A. M. (1995). Designing team-based organizations: New forms for knowledge work. San Francico, CA: Jossey-Bass. Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs. Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24, 249–265. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247. Mulvey, P. W., & Klein, H. J. (1998). The impact of perceived loafing and collective efficacy on group goal process and group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74, 62–87. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviours: A critical review the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563. Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommendation remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544. Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be: Central questions in organizational identification. In D. A. Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversation (pp. 171–207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Raju, N. S., Laffitte, L. J., & Byrne, B. M. (2002). Measurement equivalence: A comparison of methods on confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 517–529 530 Fred O. Walumbwa et al. Riggs, M. L., Warka, J., Babasa, B., Betancourt, R., & Hooker, S. 1994. Development and validation of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy scales for job-related applications. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 1017–1034. Schriesheim, C. A. (1979). The similarity of individual directed and group directed leader behavior descriptions. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 345–455. Shamir, B. (1990). Calculations, values, identities: The sources of collectivistic work motivation. Human Relations, 43, 313–332. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effect of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577–594. Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates attitudes, unit characteristics and superiors’ appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 387–409. Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (2000). Leadership and social identification in military units. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 612–640. Sinha, J. B. P. (1997). A cultural perspective on organizational behavior in India. In P. C. Earley and M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 53–74). San Francisco, CA: New Lexington. Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally. Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1997). Effects of leadership style and anonymity and group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 89–103. Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. (2000). Leadership styles, mentoring functions received, and job-related stress: A conceptual model and preliminary study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 365–390. Stajkovic, A. D., & Lee, D. S. (2001). A meta-analysis of the relationship between collective efficacy and group performance. Paper presented at the national Academy of Management meeting, Washington, DC, USA. Walumbwa, F. O. (1999). Rethinking the issues of international technology transfer. Journal of Technology Studies, 25, 51–54. Walumbwa, F. O., & Lawler, J. J. (2003). Building effective organizations: Transformational leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes, and withdrawal behaviours in three emerging economies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 1083–1101. Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285–305. Zellars, K. L., Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewe, P. L., Miles, A. K., & Kiewitz, C. (2001). Beyond self-efficacy: Interactive effects of role conflict and perceived collective efficacy. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 483–499. Received 7 June 2003; revised version received 30 October 2003

Tutor Answer

School: UT Austin

This is your answer buddy!

Hello, please the below:



Read the article “The Role of Collective Efficacy in the Relations between Transformational Leadership and Work
Outcomes” via the following link: http://tinyurl.com/psajuph
Read the article “Leader-Member Exchange as a Mediator of the Relationship between Transformational Leadership
and Followers’ Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behavior” via the following
link: http://tinyurl.com/ouzwwa8
Respond to the following questions based on Netflix:
1. Leadership:-Transformational Leadership.
1. Synthesize views of transformational leadership theory from classical leadership research with
your own experience to articulate a personal worldview perspective.
2. Describe the human resource management implications arising from your personal worl...

flag Report DMCA

Top quality work from this guy! I'll be back!

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags
Study Guides

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors